In A.J. Decoster Co. v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 333 Md. 245, 634 A.2d 1330 (1994), the Court of Appeals addressed the requirements to justify additional discovery before a grant of summary judgment. In Decoster, the trial court granted a defendant's summary judgment motion on limitations grounds. The plaintiff argued that the trial court erred because if it was allowed to complete discovery, it may have been able to allege the existence of material facts that would have extended the limitations period. Conversely, the defendant argued that its affidavit supported the grant of summary judgment and mere speculation was not enough to generate an issue of material fact. See id. at 261. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err in granting the motion for summary judgment. Writing for the Court, Chief Judge Murphy explained that "while . . . a trial court has discretion to deny a motion for summary judgment so that a more complete factual record can be developed, it is not reversible error if the court chooses not to do so." Id. at 262-63. Because the plaintiff below "failed to set forth facts controverting those proffered" by the defendant, the Court held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment. Id. at 263.