The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently held that the plaintiff was not entitled to discovery with respect to defendant’s summary judgment motion because he failed to provide any persuasive reason for needing discovery. In Dunning v. Quander, 508 F.3d 8 (D.C. Cir. 2007), the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment supported by nine affidavits. Plaintiff filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) supported by his attorney’s affidavit claiming that in order to oppose the motion for summary judgment, he needed to take the depositions of certain of the affiants. The District Court denied the motion for discovery stating that plaintiff had failed to “state with sufficient particularity why he could not, absent discovery, present by affidavit, facts essential to justify his opposition” as required by the Rule.
Plaintiff argued that it was necessary to take the depositions “to determine if there was a legitimate reason for statements in their affidavits.” The Court held that this was insufficient and said:
[w]ithout some reason to question the veracity of affiants, [plaintiff]’s desire to “test and elaborate” affiants’ testimony falls short.
508 F.3d at 10.
The Court went on to hold that since the Court denied the Rule 56(f) request, motion for summary judgment was uncontested and affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment.