surrounding the Javits Center takeover and focused single-mindedly on finding a reason to deny the claim, it would not disturb the conclusion that FM’s refusal to pay the claim was supported by “reasonable justification,” and that its basis for refusal, namely, interpretation of the contract, did not require any investigation into circumstances at the Javits Center. A grant of summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In this case, even if discovery would have furnished ample evidence in support of Pen-ton’s theory, Penton’s bad faith claim would still not be meritorious, and FM would still be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Audi AG, 469 F.3d at 542 (<HOLDING>). Therefore, the grant of summary judgment to
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 general allegations of a need for additional discovery will not suffice the person presenting such a claim must show what discovery has been obtained why it is inadequate and the what additional information he expects to obtain from additional discovery holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law holding that rejection of the appellants rule 56f request for additional discovery was proper where the information as to which he sought discovery was immaterial to the question of whether he is liable 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