USCA1 Opinion
November 20, 1992
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
____________________
No. 91-2242
No. 91-2242
KIMBERLY MATTOON, ET AL.,
KIMBERLY MATTOON, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
Plaintiffs, Appellants,
v.
v.
CITY OF PITTSFIELD, ET AL.,
CITY OF PITTSFIELD, ET AL.,
Defendants, Appellees.
Defendants, Appellees.
____________________
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Frank H. Freedman, U.S. District Judge]
[Hon. Frank H. Freedman, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
____________________
Before
Before
Cyr, Circuit Judge,
Cyr, Circuit Judge,
_____________
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________
and Fuste,* District Judge.
and Fuste,* District Judge.
______________
____________________
____________________
W. Stanley Cooke for appellants.
W. Stanley Cooke for appellants.
________________
Richard J. O'Brien with whom David O. Burbank and Cain, Hibbard,
Richard J. O'Brien with whom David O. Burbank and Cain, Hibbard,
___________________ ________________ ______________
Myers & Cook were on brief for appellee City of Pittsfield.
Myers & Cook were on brief for appellee City of Pittsfield.
____________
John C. Sikorski with whom Robinson, Donovan, Madden & Barry,
John C. Sikorski with whom Robinson, Donovan, Madden & Barry,
_________________ ____________________________________
P.C. was on brief for appellees Krofta Engineering Corp., et al.
P.C. was on brief for appellees Krofta Engineering Corp., et al.
____
William Shields with whom Carol F. Liebman and Day, Berry &
William Shields with whom Carol F. Liebman and Day, Berry &
________________ _________________ _____________
Howard were on brief for appellee Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Howard were on brief for appellee Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
______
Jay S. Gregory with whom David J. Hatem and Posternak, Blankstein
Jay S. Gregory with whom David J. Hatem and Posternak, Blankstein
______________ ______________ _____________________
& Lund were on brief for O'Brien & Gere, Inc.
& Lund were on brief for O'Brien & Gere, Inc.
______
Elizabeth W. Morse with whom John A. Wickstrom and Tashjian,
Elizabeth W. Morse with whom John A. Wickstrom and Tashjian,
___________________ __________________ _________
Simsarian & Wickstrom were on brief for appellee Fisher, et al.
Simsarian & Wickstrom were on brief for appellee Fisher, et al.
_____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
____________________
*Of the District of Puerto Rico, sitting by designation.
*Of the District of Puerto Rico, sitting by designation.
CYR, Circuit Judge. Appellants, sixty-eight residents
CYR, Circuit Judge.
_____________
of Berkshire County, Massachusetts, who allegedly contracted
giardiasis (otherwise known as "beaver fever") from drinking
contaminated water supplied by the City of Pittsfield ("City")
during November and December of 1985, brought suit against the
City and various contractors and consultants for alleged viola-
tions of federal and state law.1 Summary judgment was granted
in favor of all six defendants on appellants' federal claims and
the court dismissed the pendent state law claims without preju-
dice. We affirm.
I
I
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
__________
We describe only the essential procedural background to
these complex proceedings. As in any summary judgment case, we
recite the relevant facts in the light most favorable to the non-
moving parties, in this case the appellants. See, e.g., Siegal
___ ____ ______
v. American Honda Motor Co., 921 F.2d 15, 17 (1st Cir. 1990).
________________________
In November 1985, the City reopened its Ashley Reser-
voir to supply area residents with drinking water while other
____________________
1The five other defendants are Kroftka Engineering Corp.,
Lenox Institute for Research, Inc., O'Brien & Gere, Inc., Metcalf
& Eddy, Inc., and Fisher & Porter Co. Kroftka and Lenox advised
and assisted in the design of the City's new water filtration and
treatment facilities. O'Brien & Gere supervised construction of
the new facilities. Metcalf & Eddy designed the City's Ashley
Reservoir chlorine system and performed other services relating
to the City's water distribution equipment. Fisher & Porter sold
the chlorination equipment used at the Ashley Reservoir, and
performed some maintenance.
City water facilities were undergoing construction. The Ashley
Reservoir had not been in use since 1983. Due to a major mal-
function in its chlorination system, the Ashley Reservoir became
contaminated with the giardia lamblia pathogen.2 Other area
reservoirs were affected as well. By December 11, 1985, the City
Health Department had received several reports of giardiasis. On
December 13, a "boil water" order was issued. By the end of
December several hundred cases of giardiasis had been reported.
On December 23, 1985, the Ashley Reservoir was shut down, but
there were sporadic reports of giardiasis as late as 1987. A new
City water filtration system was placed in operation in January
1987. Although there was evidence that particles the size of the
giardia lamblia pathogen would not be removed even by the new
filtration system, there was no evidence which would support an
inference that any post-1985 giardiasis reports were linked to
problems with the City water system.
Appellants filed their complaint in June 1988. Count
I, labelled a "citizens' action" pursuant to the Safe Drinking
Water Act ("SDWA"), 42 U.S.C. 300f, et seq., demanded equita-
__ ___
ble relief and civil penalties. Count II alleged a "public
nuisance" claim under federal common law and sought compensatory
damages. Count III asserted a claim for damages pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 1983. Count IV pled a breach of warranty claim pursuant
to the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301, et seq.
__ ___
____________________
2The giardia lamblia inhabits the intestinal tract of the
beaver.
4
Other counts asserted pendent common law claims under Massachu-
setts law.
In October 1989, following several months of discovery,
a magistrate judge ordered all further interrogatories and
requests for production served by November 3, 1989, and responses
and objections served by December 8. Except for five "unusually
elaborate" discovery motions filed by appellants, the magistrate
judge ruled on all motions by February 9, 1990, and leave was
granted to amend the complaint. The magistrate judge set May 23
as the deadline for summary judgment motions, ordered "non-expert
discovery" to proceed, and stated that expert discovery relating
to issues surviving the summary judgment proceedings would be
allowed to proceed after the summary judgment proceedings were
concluded. Thereafter, the deadline for summary judgment motions
was extended several times.
On July 10, 1990, the magistrate judge ruled on appel-
lants' five remaining motions to compel, fairly described as
"well-meant but nightmarishly confusing and unhelpful." Most
were denied without prejudice. At a status conference held on
September 6, the magistrate judge extended the time for summary
judgment until November 30 and stated that "plaintiffs may
proceed with necessary discovery during the time set aside for
briefing the motions for summary judgment." Plaintiffs were
admonished about their obligations under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)
should they request further time to prepare their opposition to
summary judgment.
5
Appellants were granted further time to respond to the
motion for summary judgment, and oral argument was held in
January 1991. Throughout the seven-month period between May 1990
(the original summary judgment motion deadline) and the January
1991 hearing, extensive non-expert discovery had proceeded. On
January 7, 1991, the magistrate judge stayed all further discov-
ery pending a ruling on the summary judgment motion. Expert
discovery never took place. The magistrate judge filed a report
and recommendation in July 1991, proposing that defendants be
granted summary judgment on all federal claims. The district
court approved the recommended decision in November 1991. See 28
___
U.S.C. 636(b)(1).
Appellants challenge the order entered July 16, 1991,
denying their request for further discovery pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 56(f), and the grant of summary judgment on their federal
claims.
II
II
DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
__________
The summary judgment was predicated on the grounds that
(1) all other forms of federal relief are preempted by the SDWA,
(2) appellants did not comply with the SDWA notice requirements,
and (3) their SDWA claims are not actionable absent an ongoing
violation. Our review is de novo and we will conclude that
__ ____
"[s]ummary judgment [was] warranted where the record, viewed in
the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, reveals that
6
there is no genuine factual dispute and the moving party was
entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Siegal, 921 F.2d at
______
17.
A. SDWA Preemption
A. SDWA Preemption
_______________
Appellants challenge the district court ruling that the
SDWA preempts their section 1983 and common law nuisance claims.
Relying on Middlesex County Sewerage Auth. v. National Sea
_________________________________ _____________
Clammers Ass'n, 453 U.S. 1 (1981), the district court ruled that
_______________
the enforcement scheme under the SDWA, like those under the
environmental statutes at issue in Sea Clammers,3 is "suffi-
_____________
ciently comprehensive . . . to demonstrate congressional intent
to preclude the remedy of suits under 1983," id. at 20, and
___
that the SDWA as a whole is sufficiently comprehensive to pre-
clude federal common law remedies, id. at 22. Although their
___
arguments are far from clear, appellants appear to contend:
first, that several of their claims stem from events not regulat-
ed by the SDWA and thus that the SDWA does not preclude relief on
their federal common law nuisance claims; second, that the SDWA
is sufficiently unlike the statutes at issue in Sea Clammers to
_____________
call into question the district court's reliance on Sea Clammers;
____________
and third, that the court erred in concluding that appellants'
____________________
3At issue in Sea Clammers were the Federal Water Pollution
_____________
Control Act ("FWPCA"), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., and the Marine
__ ___
Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act("MPRSA"), 33 U.S.C.
1401 et seq.
__ ___
7
formulation of a section 1983 claim could not withstand SDWA
preemption.
8
1. Federal Common Law
1. Federal Common Law
__________________
The federal common law nuisance claims cannot escape
preemption if the enactment of the SDWA "occupied the field [of
public drinking water regulation] through the establishment of a
comprehensive regulatory program supervised by an expert adminis-
trative agency." Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304, 317
_________ ________
(1981); see also Conner v. Aerovox, Inc., 730 F.2d 835, 837 (1st
___ ____ ______ _____________
Cir. 1984) (under same standard, FWPCA held to have preempted
maritime claim), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1050 (1985). When the
____ ______
question is whether federal statutory or federal common law
standards should control the field, we "start with the assump-
______
tion" that Congress, not the courts, must decide. Id. at 317-18.
___
The establishment of a comprehensive regulatory program meeting
the Milwaukee v. Illinois standard clearly indicates that Con-
_________ ________
gress meant to reserve the governance of public drinking water
standards to federal administrative regulation rather than to the
"often vague and indeterminate nuisance concepts and maxims of
equity jurisprudence." Milwaukee, 451 U.S. at 317.
_________
We have little hesitation in concluding that Congress
occupied the field of public drinking water regulation with its
enactment of the SDWA. "The purpose of the [SDWA] is to assure
that water supply systems serving the public meet minimum nation-
_______
al standards for protection of public health." City of Evans-
__ _________ ______________
ville, Inc. v. Kentucky Liquid Recycling, 604 F.2d 1008, 1016
___________ __________________________
n.25 (7th Cir. 1979) (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 93-1185, reprinted in
[1974] U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News at 6454), cert. denied, 444
____ ______
9
U.S. 1025 (1980) (emphasis added). With minor exceptions, the
SDWA applies "to each public water system in each State." 42
U.S.C. 300g. The SDWA enables the Administrator of the Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency ("Administrator") to "publish maximum
contaminant level goals and promulgate national primary drinking
water regulations." Id. 300g-1(b)(1). The maximum contaminant
___
level is to "be set at the level at which no known or anticipated
adverse effects on the health of persons occur and which allows
an adequate margin of safety." Id. 300g-1(b)(4). The Adminis-
___
trator is authorized to list treatment techniques to achieve
compliance with the maximum allowable contaminant levels and, in
certain circumstances, to require particular treatment tech-
niques. Id. 300g-1(b)(6)-(7). The federal regulations are to
___
be "amended whenever changes in technology, treatment techniques,
and other means permit greater protection of the health of
persons, but in any event such regulations shall be reviewed at
least once every 3 years." Id. 300g-1(b)(9). Finally, al-
___
though the primary responsibility for enforcement remains with
the States, the Administrator is empowered to enforce State
compliance. Id. 300g-2-3. Thus, the regulatory scheme
___
established under the SDWA evinces a clear congressional inten-
tion to entrust the regulation of public drinking water systems
to an expert regulatory agency rather than the courts.4
____________________
4Nor are appellants aided by the savings clause in the SDWA.
42 U.S.C. 300j-8. The Supreme Court has ruled that the almost
identical savings clause in the FWPCA, 33 U.S.C. 1365(a), does
not preserve a federal common law remedy in light of the compre-
hensiveness of the FWPCA as a whole. Milwaukee, 451 U.S. at 328-
_________
10
Appellants claim, however, that the SDWA is not suffi-
ciently comprehensive to meet the test in Milwaukee v. Illinois,
_________ ________
supra, particularly because the EPA did not regulate giardia
_____
lamblia contamination at the time of the events which prompted
the present litigation. Appellants misapprehend the nature of
the comprehensiveness inquiry required under Milwaukee v. Illi-
_________ _____
nois, which turns on "'whether the field has been occupied, not
____
whether it has been occupied in a particular manner.'" Conner,
______
730 F.2d at 841 (quoting Milwaukee, 451 U.S. at 324). In other
_________
words, "'once Congress has addressed a national concern, our
fundamental commitment to the separation of powers precludes the
courts from scrutinizing the sufficiency of the congressional
solution.'" Id. (quoting People of State of Illinois v. Illinois
___ ___________________________ ________
Outboard Marine, 680 F.2d 473, 478 (7th Cir. 1982)). Provided
________________
the EPA has the statutory authority to regulate contaminants in
the public drinking water supply, it is within the province of
the agency, not the courts, to determine which contaminants will
be regulated. The comprehensiveness of the legislative grant is
not diminished, nor is the congressional intent to occupy the
field rendered unclear, merely by reason of the regulatory
agency's discretionary decision to exercise less than the total
spectrum of regulatory power with which it was invested. See
___
Milwaukee, 451 U.S. at 324-25 n.18 (complaint that "permits
_________
issued . . . under [the FWPCA] do not control overflows or
treated discharges in a sufficiently stringent manner, not that
____________________
29.
11
permits under the Act cannot deal with these subjects," does not
create an interstice to be filled by federal common law).5
2. Section 1983
2. Section 1983
____________
Appellants' section 1983 claims are based on two
contentions. First, they contend that their rights under the
SDWA were violated. Second, they assert a violation of their
"constitutional right" to safe drinking water. We find merit in
neither claim.
Appellants may not pursue their section 1983 claims
unless Congress intended to preserve a right of action under
section 1983 to redress SDWA violations. "When the remedial
devices provided in a particular Act are sufficiently comprehen-
sive, they may suffice to demonstrate congressional intent to
preclude the remedy of suits under 1983." Sea Clammers, 453
____________
U.S. at 20 (comprehensive enforcement schemes of FWPCA and MPSRA
preclude 1983 action); see also Garcia v. Cecos Int'l, Inc.,
___ ____ ______ _________________
761 F.2d 76, 82-83 (1st Cir. 1985) (comprehensive enforcement
scheme under Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA")
precludes right of action under 1983). Like the statutes at
issue in Sea Clammers and Garcia, the SDWA establishes an elabo-
____________ ______
rate enforcement scheme which confers rights of action on both
____________________
5Of course, insofar as appellants might complain about any
failure of the EPA to assert its regulatory power under the SDWA,
we would lack jurisdiction to entertain their complaint. See 42
___
U.S.C. 300j-7(a)(1) (claims against EPA under the SDWA must be
brought in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit); Western Nebraska Resources Council v. E.P.A., 793 F.2d
___________________________________ ______
194, 199 (8th Cir. 1986).
12
the government and private citizens. The Administrator may bring
a civil action to compel SDWA compliance, 42 U.S.C. 300g-3(b),
and may issue compliance orders against violators of the SDWA
regulations, id. 300g-3(g)(1). A civil penalty, amounting to
___
as much as $25,000 per day, may be claimed for violations of the
SDWA regulations. See id. 300g-3(b), 300g-3(g)(3)(A). A
___ ___
State is invested with primary enforcement authority only after
the Administrator determines that the State has adopted regula-
tions at least as stringent as the federal regulations and that
the State "has adopted and is implementing adequate procedures
for the enforcement of such State regulations." Id. 300g-
___
2(a)(2). Moreover, private actions may be brought in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
"pertaining to the establishment of national primary drinking
water regulations (including maximum contaminant level goals)."
Id. 300j-7. Finally, citizens may initiate enforcement pro-
___
ceedings against SDWA violators and against the Administrator for
failure to perform any non-discretionary duty under the SDWA.
Id. 300j-8. As the SDWA enforcement scheme is closely analo-
___
gous to other enforcement schemes found sufficiently comprehen-
sive to evince a clear congressional intent to preempt relief
under section 1983, we hold that appellants' section 1983 claims
are preempted by the SDWA.6 Cf. Sea Clammers, 453 U.S. at 13-14
___ ____________
____________________
6Nor does the SDWA savings clause, see 42 U.S.C. 300j-8,
___
avail appellants here. The Court has held that the almost
identically worded FWPCA savings clause, see 33 U.S.C. 1365(a),
___
bars relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Sea Clammers, 453 U.S. at
_____________
14-16.
13
(identifying enforcement schemes under FWPCA and MPRSA); Garcia,
______
761 F.2d at 83 (RCRA-enforcement provisions).
Finally, even assuming a "fundamental constitutional
right" to safe public drinking water, it would not alter the
present analysis. Comprehensive federal statutory schemes, such
as the SDWA, preclude rights of action under section 1983 for
alleged deprivations of constitutional rights in the field
occupied by the federal statutory scheme. See Smith v. Robinson,
___ _____ ________
468 U.S. 992 (1984) (Education of the Handicapped Act provides
exclusive remedy even where plaintiffs assert constitutional
claims); Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820,
_____ ________________________________
824-25 (1976) ( 717 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as added by
11 of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, provides
exclusive remedy for challenging racial discrimination in federal
employment even though alleged discrimination "clearly violated
. . . the Constitution"); Zombro v. Baltimore City Police Dept.,
______ ___________________________
868 F.2d 1364 (4th Cir. 1989) (ADEA), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 850
____ ______
(1989).
B. The SDWA
B. The SDWA
________
Having determined that appellants' only actionable
federal claim arose under the SDWA, the district court granted
summary judgment to all defendants-appellees except the City, on
the ground that appellants had failed to abide by the SDWA's
notice provision. We need not reach the SDWA notice issue,
however, as we agree with the district court that appellants
14
failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact as to
whether there was an "ongoing" violation as required by the SDWA.
The SDWA allows citizens' suits against persons "al-
leged to be in violation of any requirements prescribed by or
__ __ __ _________
under this subchapter . . ." 42 U.S.C. 300j-8(a)(1) (emphasis
added). The Supreme Court has construed the identical language
in the FWPCA, see 33 U.S.C. 1365(a), as not authorizing citi-
___
zens' suits absent a "continuous or intermittent violation."
Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc.,
____________________________ _______________________________
484 U.S. 49, 64 (1987). "[T]he harm sought to be addressed by
the citizen suit lies in the present or the future, not in the
past." Id. at 59.7
___
Appellants do not disagree that Gwaltney governs.
________
Rather, as appellants see it, all Gwaltney requires is an allega-
________ _______
tion of "continuous or intermittent violation." As their com-
____
plaint included such an allegation, appellants claim the district
court improperly extended Gwaltney by requiring appellants to
________
provide evidence of an ongoing violation in order to avoid
summary judgment on their SDWA claims. As appellants character-
ize it, the district court ruling caused their "initial jurisdic-
tion to disappear."
____________________
7As the Supreme Court noted, congressional use of the phrase
"to be in violation" cannot be discounted as incidental. Gwalt-
______
ney, 484 U.S. at 57. The same phrase is found in other environ-
___
mental statutes. See Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7604; RCRA, 42
___
U.S.C. 6972 (1982 ed. and Supp. III); Toxic Substances Control
Act, 15 U.S.C. 2619 (1982 ed. and Supp. IV).
15
Appellants' characterization of the issue reflects a
fundamental misunderstanding of summary judgment procedure. Upon
a properly supported motion for summary judgment, the opposing
party can avoid summary judgment only by presenting evidence
sufficient to establish the existence of a genuine issue of
material fact as to each element essential to its claim. Price
_____
v. General Motors Corp., 931 F.2d 162, 164 (1st Cir. 1991)
_____________________
("nonmoving party cannot fend off summary judgment unless it
makes a competent demonstration that every essential element of
_____ _________ _______
its claim or defense is at least trialworthy") (emphasis in
original).8 As plaintiffs-appellants produced no expert affida-
vits, testimony, documentation or other evidence that could lead
a rational trier of fact to find an "on-going" violation, a
jurisdictional prerequisite to the maintenance of their SDWA
claim, summary judgment was properly granted for all defendants.
C. Restrictions on Discovery
C. Restrictions on Discovery
_________________________
Appellants claim that the district court prematurely
curtailed discovery as of January 1991, which prejudiced their
ability to authenticate documents needed to oppose summary
judgment. As a consequence, the magistrate judge struck the
unauthenticated documents for failure to meet the requirements of
____________________
8The City contended that plaintiffs' allegation of an
ongoing violation was a "sham." The City supported its conten-
tion with an affidavit from the City engineer, attesting that
"[t]o my knowledge, since 1986, there has [sic] been no document-
__
ed water borne instances of giardiasis resulting from the City of
Pittsfield's drinking water supply." (Emphasis in original.)
16
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(3). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e) ("When a motion
___
for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this
rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or
denials of the adverse party's pleadings, but the adverse party's
response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule,
__ __________ __ __ _________ ________ __ ____ ____
must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine
issue for trial") (emphasis added).9 Appellants likewise object
to the district court's refusal to permit expert discovery to
begin until after the non-expert discovery had been concluded.
The summary judgment motions were granted before expert discovery
ever took place.10
Federal Rule 56(f) offers a "procedural 'escape hatch'
for a party who genuinely requires additional time to marshal
'facts essential to justify [its] opposition' when confronted by
a summary judgment motion." Paterson-Leitch Co. v. Massachusetts
___________________ _____________
Municipal Wholesale Electric Co., 840 F.2d 985, 988 (1st Cir.
_________________________________
1988) (quoting Hebert v. Wicklund, 744 F.2d 218, 221 (1st Cir.
______ ________
1984)). Under Rule 56(f), "[t]he movant must (1) articulate a
plausible basis for the belief that discoverable materials exist
____________________
9Appellants raise no direct challenge to the order to
strike.
10On February 9, 1990, the magistrate judge stated that
expert discovery would take place only after the completion of
non-expert discovery and to the extent that summary judgment had
not already been granted to any of the defendants. On January 7,
1991, the same day on which he recommended the granting of
summary judgment to all defendants, the magistrate judge stayed
all further discovery. The plaintiffs' request for further
discovery was denied by the magistrate judge on July 16, 1991,
and affirmed by the district court on November 13, 1991, the day
the court granted summary judgment to the defendants.
17
which would raise a trialworthy issue, and (2) 'demonstrate good
cause for failure to have conducted the discovery earlier.'"
Price, 931 F.2d at 164 (quoting Paterson-Leitch, 840 F.2d at
_____ _______________
988). Orders denying relief under Rule 56(f) are reviewed for
abuse of discretion. Id. at 164; Bank One Texas, N.A. v. A.J.
___ _____________________ ____
Warehouse, Inc., 968 F.2d 94, 100 (1st Cir. 1992).
_______________
The affidavit appellants presented in support of their
motion for relief under Rule 56(f) did little more than list the
witnesses appellants wished to depose, and allege "[t]hat because
of the complexity of the case and the number of parties involved,
the parties have not yet completed discovery." The affidavit
presented no plausible basis for asserting a belief that "speci-
fied" discoverable facts probably existed. See Paterson-Leitch,
___ _______________
840 F.2d at 988 (Rule 56(f) affidavit "should articulate some
plausible basis for the party's belief that specified 'dis-
_________
coverable' material facts likely exist") (emphasis added). Nor
did the affidavit demonstrate a realistic prospect that further
discovery would disclose evidence sufficient to defeat the motion
for summary judgment, which was granted largely on legal rather
than factual grounds. Particularly, and most importantly, the
Rule 56(f) affidavit merely conjectures that something might be
discovered but provides no realistic basis for believing that
further discovery would disclose evidence of an ongoing SDWA
_______ ____
violation without which there could be no genuine issue of
_________
material fact for trial. No document stricken by the district
court under Rule 56(e) pertained to the existence of an ongoing
18
SDWA violation. Furthermore, appellants failed to identify any
________
specific fact they would expect to discover, even though they
were forewarned by the magistrate judge that their reliance on
Rule 56(f) relief would oblige them "to specify precisely what
information they have reasonable grounds to expect would be
disclosed that would generate genuine and material disputes of
fact."
Finally, appellants ascribe no "cause" for their
failure to complete non-expert discovery, except for the complex-
ity of the case. The case did indeed involve complex issues.
Nevertheless, more than two and one-half years elapsed between
the filing of the original complaint and the granting of the
motion for summary judgment, and summary judgment was not granted
until more than a year after appellants were made aware that
summary judgment would be sought. We believe the district court
allowed appellants ample time for adequate non-expert discov-
ery;11 it did not abuse its discretion by declining Rule 56(f)
relief from their own lack of diligence. See Price, 931 F.2d at
___ _____
164 (no abuse of discretion in refusing Rule 56(f) relief from
plaintiff's own "lack of diligence").
The district court judgment is affirmed.
_______________________________________
____________________
11Although appellants assert that they were prejudiced by
the lack of opportunity to conduct discovery relating to appel-
lees' expert witnesses, the availability of the information
needed to defeat summary judgment did not depend on appellants'
ability to depose defendants' experts. Appellants were free to
submit affidavits from their own experts as to the existence of
an ongoing violation, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e), yet none were
___
forthcoming.
19