Settlement Discussions Do Not Satisfy 56(f)

NRCP 56(f) allows the party opposing summary judgment to request an opportunity to conduct further discovery if the facts needed to oppose summary judgment are not yet available. Rule 56(d) is the federal equivalent. However, the Supreme Court of Nevada concluded the status of settlement discussions is not sufficient to invoke the rule.

In Stuhmer v. Talmer W. Bank, the plaintiff argued “the district court abused its discretion by denying his request to continue discovery in light of the parties’ ongoing settlement efforts.”^[1] The problem with that argument was that NRCP 56(f) requires the party seeking relief to state “how further discovery will lead to the creation of a genuine issue of material fact.”^[2] The status of settlement discussions does not indicate how further discovery will create a genuine issue of material fact. Given that, NRCP 56(f) relief was properly denied.

[1] No. 68722, 2017 Nev. Unpub. LEXIS 952 (Oct. 30, 2017).
[2] Francis v. Wynn Las Vegas, LLC, 127 Nev. 657, 669, 262 P.3d 705, 714 (2011) (quoting Aviation Ventures, Inc. v. Joan Morris, Inc., 121 Nev. 113, 118, 110 P.3d 59, 62 (2005)).