strengths and weaknesses of the proposed settlement.” Girsh, 521 F.2d at 157. We later explained in Community Bank that our finding regarding objector discovery in Girsh "was predicated on the total inadequacy of the record upon which the settlement was approved,” as well as the fact that the objector was denied meaningful participation at the fairness hearing. Cmty. Bank, 418 F.3d at 316. We concluded, therefore, that “Girsh cannot stand for the proposition that, as a general matter, objectors have an absolute right to discovery.” Id. "On the other hand, we [have] recognized that discovery may be appropriate if lead counsel has not conducted adequate discovery or if the discovery conducted by lead counsel is not made available to objectors.” Id.; see also Prudential, 148 F.3d at 325 (<HOLDING>). Here, because we will remand for further
holding that district court did not abuse its discretion by denying motion to extend discovery where no effort was made to explain why the requested discovery could not have taken place within the original discovery period holding the district court acted well within its discretion in denying an objectors request for discovery where the objector was able to present his arguments to the court during the fairness hearing and where the court found the objector had ample opportunity to avail himself of the substantial discovery provided to lead counsel but failed to do so and that additional discovery was unnecessary because the objector focused primarily on legal issues 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 the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a rule 56f motion for a continuance where the movant had ample time in which to pursue the discovery that it now claims is essential holding that a discovery exception to a statute of limitation applies only to the discovery of facts not discovery of the law