Before Justices Douglas, Hardesty and Parraguire. Opinion by Justice Douglas.
In this appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court considered the procedure required by NRCP 56(f) for the party opposing a motion for summary judgment to request the denial or continuance of the motion in order to obtain additional affidavits or conduct further discovery. The Court confirmed the plain language of the Rule, finding that Rule 56(f) requires that the party opposing summary judgment provide an affidavit stating the reasons why denial or continuance of the motion for summary judgment is necessary to allow the opposing party to obtain further affidavits or discovery. The Court further found that a mere request for a continuance contained within an opposition to a motion for summary judgment was not sufficient to meet the unequivocal affidavit requirement. The Court affirmed the lower court’s grant of respondent’s motion for summary judgment. (Amanda C. Yen, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson).
