holding that when the nonmoving party requests a delay in ruling on a summary judgment motion until further discovery may be completed, the party "must demonstrate the likelihood that further discovery will uncover additional relevant evidence and that the party is not merely engaged in a fishing expedition" (citation and quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- holding that when the nonmoving party requests a delay in ruling on a summary judgment motion until further discovery may be completed, the party "must demonstrate the likelihood that further discovery will uncover additional relevant evidence and that the party is not merely engaged in a fishing expedition" (citation and quotation marks omitted)
- stating "the nonmoving party must demonstrate the likelihood that further discovery will uncover additional relevant evidence and that the party is 'not merely engaged in a fishing expedition'" (quoting Baughman v. Am. Tel. and Tel. Co., 306 S.C. 101, 112 , 410 S.E.2d 537, 544 (1991))
- finding the trial court properly declined to consider an expert affidavit that “offered some helpful, factual information” but mainly offered legal arguments concerning the reasons the trial court should deny summary judgment
- stating nonmoving party to summary judgment motion must demonstrate the likelihood that further discovery will uncover additional relevant evidence and that the party is not merely engaged in a fishing expedition.
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Justice PLEICONES
dissenting:
I agree with the majority that at the summary judgment phase, a verified complaint is an acceptable substitute for an affidavit, as long as the pleading satisfies Rule 56(e), SCRCP. However, I respectfully disagree that there was no genuine issue of material fact that precluded summary judgment. In *72 my opinion, the factual averments of respondents’ verified complaint raised a genuine issue whether petitioners breached their fiduciary duty. The complaint alleged that the shares were issued for inadequate compensation. And that there was no legitimate business purpose for issuing the shares, as evidenced by the 100% dividend, returned on those shares only a few months later. I would therefore affirm the Court of Appeals.