Opinion ID: 221028
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Procedural Objection to Summary Judgment

Text: Powell contends it was improper for the district court to grant the Union’s summary judgment motion before he had taken the depositions for which he had been allowed an extension of the discovery deadline. But he never raised this objection in the proceedings below, where he responded to the summary judgment motion on the merits with evidence already in his possession without seeking a postponement of the proceedings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) 3 to gather and present additional evidence in opposition to the motion. Our case law makes it clear that the failure to comply with Rule 56(f) and provide the district court an opportunity to consider a purported need for further discovery precludes a party from objecting to the grant of summary judgment on this basis: Because [the plaintiff] failed to file an affidavit under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f) explaining “why facts precluding summary judgment cannot be presented,” which is the proper procedure by which to request further discovery prior to the court’s ruling on a summary judgment motion, he has waived the argument that the grant of summary judgment should be set aside for lack of sufficient discovery. Trask v. Franco, 446 F.3d 1036, 1042 (10th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). Rule 56(f) states that “[i]f a party opposing the [summary judgment] motion shows by affidavit that, for specified reasons, it cannot present facts 3 The controlling provision was set out in Rule 56(f) at the time summary judgment was decided in this case. We note that it was subsequently moved to Rule 56(d) when a new provision was added as Rule 56(f), effective December 1, 2010. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, Advisory Committee Note for 2010 Amendments. -5- essential to justify its opposition,” the court may deny the motion, order a continuance for additional discovery to be undertaken, or issue any other order that is appropriate. But “[w]here a party opposing summary judgment ... fails to take advantage of the shelter provided by Rule 56(f) by filing an affidavit, there is no abuse of discretion in granting summary judgment if it is otherwise appropriate.” Pasternak v. Lear Petroleum Exploration, Inc., 790 F.2d 828, 832-33 (10th Cir. 1986). Because [the plaintiff] did not file an affidavit, the district judge did not abuse his discretion in granting summary judgment based on the record before him. Campfield v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 532 F.3d 1111, 1124-25 (10th Cir. 2008). And while a party’s pro se status would not excuse such an omission, see Abdulhaseeb v. Calbone, 600 F.3d 1301, 1310 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 469 (2010), it is all the more appropriate to enforce our rule here, as Powell had counsel to assess the need for and value of the additional discovery in question.