Opinion ID: 2546296
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: NRCP 56(f) motion for a continuance

Text: Vision contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because it improperly denied Vision's NRCP 56(f) request for a continuance to allow it to conduct discovery to oppose the summary judgment motion. We agree. NRCP 56(f) permits a district court to grant a continuance when a party opposing a motion for summary judgment is unable to marshal facts in support of its opposition. [2] A district court's decision to refuse such a continuance is reviewed for abuse of discretion. [3] Furthermore, a motion for a continuance under NRCP 56(f) is appropriate only when the movant expresses how further discovery will lead to the creation of a genuine issue of material fact. [4] In Halimi v. Blacketor, this court concluded that a district court had abused its discretion when it denied an NRCP 56(f) motion for a continuance and granted summary judgment in a case where the complaint had been filed only a year before summary judgment was granted. [5] This court noted that summary judgment is improper when a party seeks additional time to conduct discovery to compile facts to oppose the motion. [6] Furthermore, this court held that when no dilatory motive was shown, it was an abuse of discretion to refuse a request for further discovery at such an early stage in the proceedings. [7] In its opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Vision informed the district court that the parties had yet to file a joint case conference report as required under NRCP 16.1 and that, as a result, discovery had not yet begun. In order to obtain discovery, Vision filed a motion for a continuance and attached affidavits from Vision's president and from its chief financial officer that detailed LVTB's refusal to give Vision financial information regarding LVT & T. Vision argued that this information was required to determine the full amount of Vision's indebtedness on the note. We agree with Vision that the district court should have granted its motion for a continuance to allow it to engage in discovery. Vision clearly enunciated how discovery would allow it to develop the record in order to properly oppose LVTB's motion. [8] Furthermore, less than eight months had passed between the complaint and the granting of summary judgment. There is no evidence in the record that Vision lacked diligence in conducting discovery. More importantly, Vision requested a continuance before either party had filed a joint case conference report, which must precede discovery. In this case, discovery was necessary for the court to appropriately consider the circumstances surrounding the agreement on the note, a necessary corollary to properly determining whether evidence of a separate agreement to pay the note with LVT & T's profits violates the parol evidence rule. Because it is unclear whether genuine issues of material fact exist as to the circumstances surrounding the making of the note and its terms, we conclude that the district court should have granted Vision's motion for a continuance to allow for proper development of the record. As a result, we further conclude that LVTB's motion for summary judgment was improperly granted. [9]