Lynne Koplove and Jay S. Koplove v. Ford Motor Company

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming summary judgment and rejection of the Rule 56(d) affidavit because “the case was nine months old and the . . . affidavit did not specify what discovery was needed or explain why it had not been previously secured”
• “Movant[s] under Rule 56[] must have used discovery mechanisms in timely fashion . . . a request for relief under Rule 56[] is extremely unlikely to succeed when the party seeking the delay has failed to take advantage of discovery” (cleaned up)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).