CALIFORNIA — Defendant, Rohr, Inc., filed a motion for summary judgment based upon a lack of evidence demonstrating the plaintiff was exposed to a Rohr product. The plaintiffs opposed the motion, but failed to present any such evidence in support of their opposition. The plaintiffs also filed a motion to continue, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), for additional time to conduct discovery. To succeed on such a motion, the moving party must show: 1) an affidavit setting forth the specific facts to be elicited from further discovery; 2) the facts sought exist; and 3) the sought-after facts are essential to oppose summary judgment.
For the second requirement, the plaintiffs argued that “if Rohr were to actually search their records … they would uncover the components used to make and assemble the products at issue.” The court found this argument to be mere speculation, particularly since Rohr’s records were the subject of numerous discovery disputes. The court had recently denied the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions, concluding that Rohr took steps that reasonably complied with a January 2018 discovery order. Therefore, the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of demonstrating that a Rule 56(d) continuance should be granted, and failed to present any evidence of Rohr’s liability. Summary judgment was accordingly entered.