375 F.3d 35, 40 (1st Cir.2004). In addition, the party must “set forth good cause to explain the movant’s failure to have conducted the desired discovery at an earlier date.” Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, Inc. v. American Bar Ass’n, 142 F.3d 26, 44 (1st Cir.1998). Even upon submission of the required materials, the district court is entitled to refuse a Rule 56(f) motion if it concludes that the party opposing summary judgment is unlikely to garner useful evidence from supplemental discovery, especially when the discovery requested would further delay a long-pending case. See FDIC v. Kooyomjian, 220 F.3d 10, 15 (1st Cir.2000); Greebel v. FTP Software, Inc., 194 F.3d 185, 202 n. 15 (1st Cir.1999); see also Fennell v. First Step Designs, Ltd., 83 F.3d 526, 532 (1st Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Similarly, the district court may refuse to
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 that district court could balance potential benefits of rule 56f discovery against the costs burdens and delays that the proposed discovery entailed 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 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