Kathleen Strang v. United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting argument that summary judgment was inappropriate because nonmovant “did not state with sufficient particularity . . . why discovery was necessary”
• reading the term “law enforcement” as “encompassing the enforcement of national security laws as well”
• affirming the district court’s denial of discovery under Rule 56(f) and holding that “[w]ithout some reason to question the veracity of affiants . . . [the plaintiff’s] desire to ‘test and elaborate’ affiants’ testimony falls short”
• plaintiff must “state with sufficient particularity . . . why discovery [is] necessary,” and a court may deny a Rule 56(d) motion if no adequate explanation of facts is given
• a court “may deny a motion for summary judgment or order a continuance to permit discovery if the party opposing the motion adequately explains why, at that timepoint, it cannot present by affidavit facts needed to defeat the motion”
• “[A] court may deny a motion for summary judgment or order a continuance to permit discovery if 25 the party opposing the motion adequately explains why, at that timepoint, it cannot present by affidavit facts needed to defeat the motion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).