Qualls v. Blue Cross Of California

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a Rule 56(d) motion may be denied if the movant failed to “diligently 9 pursu[e] its previous discovery opportunities”
• stating that to obtain relief, a movant must have 12 “diligently pursued its previous discovery opportunities” (emphasis omitted)
• holding district court 21 does not abuse its discretion in denying further discovery where movant does not 22 articulate how additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment
• in ruling on a motion to reopen discovery, the Court considers whether the 12 movant diligently pursued its previous discovery opportunities
• appellate court rarely questions the lower court’s exercise of discretion in connection with its application of the local 27 rules
• “We will only find that the district court 20 abused its discretion if . . . the movant can show how allowing additional discovery would have 21 precluded summary judgment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).