Rule 56dEdit
Rule 56(d) is a procedural provision in the federal rules that gives a party opposing a motion for summary judgment a way to pause and pursue necessary discovery before the court rules. It is part of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and it interacts closely with Rule 56, which governs how and when summary judgment may be granted. In practical terms, Rule 56(d) recognizes that a record developed through discovery often matters as much as the pleadings and briefs themselves. When a party can show that it cannot adequately respond to a motion for summary judgment without additional time and access to evidence, the court may defer ruling, deny the motion, or allow targeted discovery to proceed before any final decision.
From a practitioner’s perspective, Rule 56(d) is about the sane pace of litigation: it protects factual accuracy without forcing parties to trial on an incomplete or misleading record. Supporters view it as a necessary safeguard against premature judgments that could overlook key documents, depositions, or other sources of proof. It sits at the intersection of civil procedure and judicial economy, aiming to keep courts from rendering erroneous results while avoiding unnecessary delays. For readers familiar with the structure of civil procedure, see Civil procedure and discovery for the broader framework in which Rule 56(d) operates, as well as summary judgment to understand the decision point at which 56(d) becomes relevant.
What Rule 56(d) does
Triggers for relief: A party may invoke Rule 56(d) when it cannot oppose or defeat a motion for summary judgment without additional discovery. This sometimes arises when essential facts are not yet in the record, and access to witnesses, documents, or other evidence could change the outcome. See Rule 56 and discovery for related mechanisms and terms.
Procedure and showing: The party seeking relief must file a motion under Rule 56(d) and usually submit an affidavit or declaration detailing what discovery is needed and why it is essential to present a genuine dispute of material fact. The court then weighs whether the request is specific, timely, and credible. The standards here are a matter of judicial discretion and reasoned analysis under civil procedure.
Scope of discovery: When granted, the relief can take the form of a continuance of the summary judgment briefing, a temporary stay of decision, or permission to obtain particular discovery items—such as interrogatories, document production, or testimony in depositions. See discovery and deposition for related concepts.
Limits and cautions: Courts expect the moving party to show diligence—i.e., that it has pursued discovery that is reasonably likely to turn up essential facts. Courts may impose conditions or limits to prevent abuse, and they can tailor discovery to what is necessary to resolve the disputed issues. See affidavit for the typical evidentiary vehicle used in these showings.
Applications and practice
Rule 56(d) appears across a wide range of civil litigation, from business disputes and contract cases to employment matters and complex multi-party litigation. In corporate and commercial contexts, where the evidentiary record can hinge on internal documents, data, and key witnesses, 56(d) provides a prudent path to ensure that a court does not grant or deny a motion based on an incomplete picture. See Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and discovery for the general rules governing how information is gathered and presented.
The use of Rule 56(d) is heavily fact-dependent. Courts assess (a) whether the nonmovant has identified what discovery would yield, (b) whether the time requested is reasonable, and (c) whether the discovery sought would likely affect the court’s evaluation of material facts. Where discovery is properly targeted and diligently pursued, Rule 56(d) can yield a more accurate resolution of disputes and reduce the risk of misapplication of the summary judgment standard. See summary judgment and affidavit for related concepts, and consider how these tools interact with the broader civil procedure framework.
Controversies and debates
From a perspective that emphasizes predictability, efficiency, and finality in litigation, Rule 56(d) is best understood as a disciplined tool to prevent the courts from rushing to judgment on the basis of an incomplete record. Advocates argue that:
It protects judicial economy: Rushed or premature decisions can lead to appeals, retrials, and higher costs. A measured use of 56(d) helps ensure that decisions are grounded in a complete set of facts.
It curbs strategic delays by design: While some critics allege the rule is a vehicle for stalling, the requirement for a documented need for discovery acts as a gatekeeping mechanism, reducing opportunistic abuse.
It aligns with fair process: When important evidence is not yet available, denying relief in a 56(d) context risks a judgment that misrepresents the situation or overlooks crucial documentation.
Opponents argue that Rule 56(d) can slow cases and deprive parties of timely resolutions. Critics sometimes characterize 56(d) as a tool that could be used to shield weaker claims from prompt adjudication. Proponents counter that these worries are overstated because:
The rule is narrowly tailored and infrequently invoked: Courts require specificity and diligence, and they can impose conditions to prevent abuse.
The need for accurate results outweighs speed in many contexts: Especially in commercial disputes or cases with complex evidence, giving a party time to obtain the necessary information is essential to reach the right outcome.
From the right-of-center perspective, the emphasis is often on predictable timelines, disciplined discovery, and the avoidance of litigation gamesmanship. The focus is on ensuring that courts do not sacrifice accuracy for speed, while still striving to move disputes toward resolution where appropriate. In debates that some observers label as “woke” critiques—often focusing on expansive use of discovery to delay outcomes—this view argues that the precautionary role of 56(d) is a necessary brake on inappropriate expansion of discovery demands, not a blanket endorsement of delay.
Why some criticisms of Rule 56(d) are considered overstated from this vantage point:
Discovery is a tool, not a trap: When used properly, discovery reveals facts that fundamentally shape the case, including business records, communications, and other evidence that would be missed otherwise.
The burden of proof is not excessive: The requirement to show how discovery would affect the outcome keeps the door from being opened to broad, unfocused fishing expeditions.
Courts retain control: Judges retain substantial discretion to shape the scope and duration of discovery, including setting deadlines and limiting topics.