(PC) Valencia v. Gibson, 1:12-cv-01446

Plaintiff Abel Valencia, a pro se prisoner, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; defendant Ruiz moved for summary judgment arguing Valencia received adequate process in his gang validation.
Defendant submitted five redacted confidential memoranda (referenced in CDC 1030 forms) to satisfy the "some evidence" standard for validation; those redacted memos were produced to Valencia in mid‑April 2015 with a privilege log.
Court set discovery deadline for May 16, 2015; Valencia served production requests in March 2015, received redacted memos April 15, 2015, and was deposed May 19, 2015, where he acknowledged receipt and review of the memos.
After defendant filed summary judgment on December 11, 2015, Valencia moved under Rule 56(d) (mis‑cited as 56(f)) for a continuance to depose memo authors and an officer (Lee) who intercepted a note referenced in a memo.
The court found Valencia had been aware of the identities and materials since April 2015, made no effort to compel or extend discovery before the deadline, and failed to show diligence or that the sought discovery would create a genuine dispute.
Court denied the Rule 56(d) continuance and granted Valencia 30 days to file his opposition to the summary judgment motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rule 56(d) continuance for depositions/production is warranted	Valencia sought time to depose authors of confidential memoranda and Officer Lee and to obtain the intercepted note to oppose summary judgment	Ruiz argued Valencia was not diligent, had received/redacted memos months earlier, knew identities, and failed to seek discovery before deadline	Denied — Valencia failed to show diligence or that sought discovery would create a genuine issue

Blough v. Holland Realty, Inc., 574 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2009) (burden on nonmovant to show by affidavit specified reasons and that sought evidence likely exists and would preclude summary judgment)
Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2011) (Rule 56(d) requires showing that discovery sought is likely to produce needed facts)
Tatum v. City and County of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090 (9th Cir. 2006) (nonmovant must identify relevant information and demonstrate diligence)
Metabolife Int’l, Inc. v. Womick, 264 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) (discovery for opposing summary judgment warranted only where nonmovant lacked prior opportunity to discover essential information)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard and role of discovery in opposing summary judgment)
Mackey v. Pioneer Nat’l Bank, 867 F.2d 520 (9th Cir. 1989) (Rule 56(d) relief denied where movant failed to diligently pursue discovery before summary judgment)
Conkle v. Jeong, 73 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 1995) (district court may deny further discovery when movant failed to pursue discovery diligently)