disputes. This purpose makes litigation less of a game of ‘blindman’s bluff and more of a contest that seeks a fair and adequate resolution of a dispute.” Cleckley, Litigation Handbook, § 26, at 540. With this purpose in mind, we need not determine whether the pre-answer discovery by the parties was solely to accommodate the defendants’ efforts to obtain summary judgment. We believe as a matter of fundamental fairness, and so hold, that when a dispositive pre-answer motion by a defendant is denied by a trial court, or granted but reversed by the Supreme Court, a plaintiff must be permitted to conduct discovery after the defendant files an answer even though the parties may have previously engaged in pre-answer discovery. See Gray v. Whisenaut, 258 Ga. 242, 368 S.E.2d 115, 116 (Ga.1988) (<HOLDING>). In the instant proceeding, the defendants
recognizing that while summary judgment is improper if the nonmovant is not afforded a sufficient opportunity for discovery it is the nonmovants responsibility to inform the district court of the need for discovery by filing an affidavit pursuant to rule 56f of the federal rules of civil procedure or filing a motion requesting additional discovery holding that oneyear period runs from the discovery of the transfer holding that a request for admission is a tool of discovery subject to discovery cutoff dates holding that the states rule dates the beginning of the discovery period only from the filing of the answer holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law