What must a party show to obtain additional discovery time under rule 56(f)? Robinson v. Jones Waldo Explained

In Robinson v. Jones Waldo, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the standards for obtaining additional discovery time under rule 56(f) and reinforced the requirements for legal malpractice claims in complex cases.

Background and Facts

Michael Robinson retained Jones Waldo to represent him in a complex divorce involving millions of dollars in marital property, including commercial real estate called Phoenix Plaza. Robinson agreed to a stipulation requiring him to refinance the property within 15 days, which he never attempted. Robinson later sued his attorneys for legal malpractice, claiming they should have advised him to include contingency language in the stipulation addressing potential refinancing difficulties. After Robinson’s counsel withdrew in April 2013, he struggled to find new representation and did not retain counsel until August 12, 2013—just three days before his response to defendants’ summary judgment motion was due.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented two main issues: (1) whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Robinson’s rule 56(f) motion for additional discovery time, and (2) whether summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the defendants.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed both rulings under an abuse of discretion standard for the rule 56(f) motion and correctness review for summary judgment. The court emphasized that parties seeking additional discovery must provide “a viable theory as to the nature of the facts they wish to obtain.” Robinson’s affidavits failed to explain what specific facts would be uncovered through depositions or how those facts would aid his opposition to summary judgment. The court also noted that Robinson had adequate time before his counsel’s withdrawal to conduct discovery but failed to demonstrate diligence during that period. Regarding the malpractice claim, the court held that expert testimony was necessary given the complexity of the divorce case, and Robinson failed to establish causation since he never attempted to refinance the property.

Practice Implications

This decision underscores the importance of specificity when seeking discovery extensions. Practitioners must articulate precisely what evidence they expect to obtain and how it will support their case theory. The ruling also highlights that in complex legal malpractice cases involving sophisticated transactions, expert testimony regarding the standard of care is typically required. Finally, the decision demonstrates that preservation of error remains critical—Robinson’s failure to timely respond to the summary judgment motion resulted in waiver of his appellate arguments.