Polk v. Brown

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that the non-movant must state with “sufficient particularity” why. the discovery sought is necessary
• explaining that to obtain discovery, “the movant must submit an affidavit which ‘state[s] with sufficient particularity ,.. why [additional] discovery [is] necessary’”
• stating that “summary judgment is premature unless all parties have had a full opportunity to conduct discovery”
• noting that requests for additional time for discovery pursuant to Rule 56(d
• referring to a four-year process of discovery that “was both slow and litigious” before the Rule 56(d) filing
• explaining that a Rule 56(d) affidavit must outline the particular facts the movant intends to discover and describe why such facts are necessary, explain why the facts could not be produced in opposition to summary judgment, and show that the information is discoverable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).