Utah Court of Appeals
What must parties show to obtain additional discovery time under Rule 56(f)? Campbell, M&S v. DeBry Explained
Summary
Attorney Debry retained Campbell, Maack & Sessions for divorce representation but later refused to pay the agreed fees and counterclaimed for legal malpractice. After extensive discovery, CMS moved for summary judgment, and Debry sought additional time under Rule 56(f) but failed to file any responsive affidavits or evidence.
Analysis
The Utah Court of Appeals decision in Campbell, M&S v. DeBry provides important guidance on the requirements for obtaining additional discovery time under Rule 56(f) and the consequences of failing to properly oppose summary judgment motions.
Background and Facts
Attorney Janice Debry retained Campbell, Maack & Sessions (CMS) for divorce representation, agreeing to pay hourly fees of $185 per hour. After successful representation that resulted in substantial alimony and marital assets, Debry refused to pay the $118,394.31 fee and counterclaimed for legal malpractice. Following extensive discovery over nearly three years, CMS moved for summary judgment. Debry sought additional time under Rule 56(f) but failed to file any responsive affidavits or evidence opposing the motion.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying Debry’s Rule 56(f) motion and whether summary judgment was proper on both the breach of contract claim and malpractice counterclaim. The analysis focused on the specific requirements for Rule 56(f) relief and the burden-shifting framework in summary judgment proceedings.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court applied an abuse of discretion standard for the Rule 56(f) motion and correctness for summary judgment. For Rule 56(f) relief, parties must show what facts are within the movant’s exclusive control, what discovery steps have been taken, and how additional time would aid opposition. Here, Debry’s expert already possessed sufficient billing information to form an opinion, and three years of discovery was adequate. The court also found that CMS established a prima facie case for breach of contract while Debry failed to provide any evidence supporting her malpractice claim.
Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes that Rule 56(f) motions require specific factual showings, not conclusory statements about needing more time. Practitioners must demonstrate that unavailable information is truly necessary and within the opponent’s exclusive control. Additionally, the case illustrates the critical importance of filing responsive affidavits in summary judgment proceedings—failure to do so effectively concedes that no genuine issues of material fact exist.
Case Details
Case Name
Campbell, M&S v. DeBry
Citation
2001 UT App 397
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 990810-CA
Date Decided
December 13, 2001
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
The trial court properly denied a Rule 56(f) motion for additional discovery time and granted summary judgment where the opposing party failed to provide sufficient justification for delay and submitted no evidence to oppose the motion.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for Rule 56(f) motions; correctness for summary judgment
Practice Tip
When seeking Rule 56(f) relief, demonstrate specifically what information is unavailable, what discovery efforts have been undertaken, and how additional time will aid opposition to summary judgment.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.