Opinion ID: 752161
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Essentialness of Facts Sought

Text: 41 Moreover, Rule 56(f) mandates that the party seeking the continuance must show that it lacks the 'facts essential' to resist the summary judgment motion. McCormick, 26 F.3d at 885. But the facts that the defendants hope to elicit during discovery are not essential to resisting California's summary adjudication motion. 42 The undisputed evidence that trichloroethylene contaminated the soil and groundwater at the 20th Street Property is sufficient to establish the defendants' liability under California law. To succeed on its summary adjudication motion, California need not prove that property other than the 20th Street Property suffered from contamination. Under California law, the pollution at the 20th Street Property constitutes a public nuisance and violates California's environmental laws. See Carter v. Chotiner, 210 Cal. 288, 291, 291 P. 577 (1930) (polluted water is a public nuisance); Cal. Health & Safety Code § 25358.3 (when a release or threatened release of hazardous substances endangers the environment, those responsible may have to take remedial action). Therefore, any additional data about contamination at property other than the 20th Street Property is not relevant to oppose the summary adjudication motion. See McCormick, 26 F.3d at 885 (concluding that additional testimony would have made no difference on summary judgment, because the allegedly omitted material would not have altered the total mix of information available to the plaintiff). 43 The defendants therefore have not satisfied the requirements of Rule 56(f). Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the defendant's request to stay summary adjudication and continue discovery.