USA, ex rel Brady Folliard v. Government Acquisitions

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the district court may consider a party’s “diligence” in reviewing a Rule 56(d) motion
• concluding that reliance on a suppliers’ certifications of COO data was reasonable in part because the defendant had notified GSA of its reliance during CAVs and GSA’s report cards 49 evaluating the defendant “all concluded that [the defendant] ha[d] complied with the TAA”
• summarizing principles surrounding invocation of Rule 56(d) in opposing summary judgment
• “The district court has the discretion to decide whether circumstances of the case warrant additional discovery.”
• “[District courts must assess all the requirements discussed in Convertino.”
• referring to “further” and “additional” discovery sought

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).