Jackson Court Condominiums v. City of New Orleans, 874 F.2d 1070, 1081 (5th Cir.1989). "[A] genuine disp 953 F.2d at 997; Lechuga v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company, 949 F.2d at 794; Reese v. Anderson, 926 F.2d at 498-99; and Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d at 1195. 49 . See Stults v. Conoco, Inc., 76 F.3d at 656; Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d at 1537; and Topaliari v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825, 113 S.Ct. 82, 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992). 50 . See Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d at 1537; and Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d at 915 n. 7. 51 . See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 28 F.3d 1388, 1396-97 (5th Cir.1994); Cormier v. Pennzoil, 969 F.2d at 1561; Reese v. Anderson, 926 F.2d at 499 & n. 5, (<HOLDING>); Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d at 1195; and
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 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 entry of summary judgment while a motion for additional discovery was pending should be construed as an implicit denial of the motion for additional discovery holding that it was within the trial courts discretion to refuse any additional discovery and that the courts refusal to allow additional discovery was not an abuse of discretion holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law