Hung P. Nguyen v. Cna Corporation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in not deeming requests for admission as admitted when the response was filed one day late
• holding that an affidavit is necessary to a Rule 56(f) objection
• noting that the plaintiff’s “vague assertions” regarding the need for further discovery were not an adequate substitute for a Rule 56(d) affidavit
• explaining that the failure to file an affidavit indicating a need for discovery “is itself sufficient grounds to reject a claim that the opportunity for discovery was inadequate.”
• explaining that the failure to file an affidavit indicating a need for discovery “is itself sufficient grounds to reject a claim that the opportunity for discovery was inadequate.”
• explaining that the failure to file an affidavit indicating a need for discovery “is itself sufficient grounds to reject a claim that the opportunity for discovery was inadequate.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).