of timing of a summary judgment motion, the request for additional discovery in opposition to a summary judgment motion must not be raised for the first time on appeal. Vance, 90 F.3d at 1149. Although it is generally improper to grant summary judgment without affording the non-movant sufficient opportunity for discovery, the non-movant bears the burden of informing the district court of his need for discovery. Id. (citing Plott v. General Motors Corp., 71 F.3d 1190, 1195 (6th Cir. 1995)). Thus, before a summary judgment motion is decided, a non-movant must file an affidavit pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f) that details the discovery needed, or file a motion for additional discovery. Wallin v. Norman, 317 F.3d 558, 564 (citing Good v. Ohio Edison Co., 149 F.3d 413, 422 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>) (internal quotation marks omitted)). If the
holding that the nonmoving party must show how additional discovery will defeat the summary judgment motion ie create a genuine dispute as to a material fact and that the nonmoving party must show that he has diligently pursued discovery of the evidence in question holding that an adverse party must state specific facts showing there is a genuine issue of fact for trial holding that under rule 56f nonmoving party seeking additional discovery must demonstrate precisely how additional discovery will lead to a genuine issue of material fact holding that a court may deny a rule 56f motion where the additional evidence sought for discovery would not have by itself created a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat summary judgment holding that a party invoking rule 56f protections must affirmatively demonstrate  how postponement of a ruling on the motion will enable him by discovery or other means to rebut the movants showing of the absence of a genuine issue of fact