Opinion ID: 712743
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Request for Limited Discovery

Text: 8 The district court should permit discovery and conduct a hearing when these steps are necessary to resolve the scope of employment question. Schrob v. Catterson, 967 F.2d 929, 938 (3d Cir.1992). Lawrence's only argument supporting her claim that she was entitled to discovery is that she might have discovered that the defendant was acting in pursuit of his own personal ends rather than in the scope of his employment. The faint hope of finding an exclusive or dominant personal motive was not enough to require the district court to exercise its discretion in Lawrence's favor. First, the pleadings obviously did not identify a genuine issue of material fact concerning the scope of employment. Second, plaintiff did not submit any declarations on this point other than a short, vague and conclusory declaration from counsel. That declaration was insufficient to justify the issuance of a discovery order. Finally, when at oral argument in the district court, Judge Henderson asked Lawrence's counsel if he could offer any facts to support his claim that the defendant acted for personal reasons, he simply offered to go to the judge's chambers and give him information ex parte. Given the total failure of Lawrence to make a sufficient showing of a reason for discovery, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied the discovery request. 9 AFFIRMED.