counsel for defendants if not by the district court’s order — to explore any topic she desired. In fact, she specifically asked about the officers’ prior contacts with VanVorous, contrary to her claim that she was prohibited from doing so. Plaintiff does not explain how she was prevented from conducting further discovery during the course of her state case, and we note that she had approximately six months between the time she filed her complaint and the time defendants’ motion for summary disposition was heard to proceed. But even if plaintiff should have been granted additional time for discovery, plaintiff was required to articulate the support she had for her allegations regarding a factual dispute. See Bellows v Delaware McDonald’s Corp, 206 Mich App 555, 561; 522 NW2d 707 (1994) (<HOLDING>). Here, plaintiff provides no basis on which
holding that when the nonmoving party requests a delay in ruling on a summary judgment motion until further discovery may be completed the party must demonstrate the likelihood that further discovery will uncover additional relevant evidence 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 where a party opposes a motion for summary disposition on the ground that discovery is incomplete the party must at least assert that a dispute does indeed exist and support that allegation by some independent evidence holding that the nonmoving parly 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 to survive a motion for summary judgment a party must make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that partys case and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial