Cox v. Winters
In Cox v. Winters, 678 P.2d 311, 312-13 (Utah 1984), the plaintiffs had sent out interrogatories and requests for admission to the defendant but never received a response to their inquiries. 678 P.2d at 313-14.
The defendant then moved for summary judgment. Id. at 312. In the midst of discovery, the plaintiffs sought additional time "to 'flush out evidence' of their claim" by filing a rule 56(f) motion for a continuance. Id. at 314-15.
The district court denied this request, however, and precluded the plaintiffs from using otherwise available discovery procedures. Id. at 315.
On appeal, the Court concluded that the plaintiffs' rule 56(f) motion should have been granted in order to allow them "to carry their already-begun discovery to completion." Id.