Bio-Medical Research Ltd. v. Thane International, Inc.

MEMORANDUM **

The district court granted defendants’ summary judgment motion on the ground that plaintiffs lacked competitor standing under the Lanham Act and substantially congruent state laws. 1 In doing so, the district court implicitly denied plaintiffs’ request for further discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f). Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir.1998) (district court may implicitly deny a Rule 56(f) motion). Generally, a district court errs in denying such a request “if the movant can show how allowing additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment.” Qualls v. Blue Cross of Cal., Inc., 22 F.3d 839 , 844 (9th Cir.1994). “Summary denial is especially inappropriate where the material sought is also the subject of outstanding discovery requests.” VISA Int’l Serv. Ass’n v. Bankcard Holders of Am., 784 F.2d 1472, 1475 (9th Cir. 1986).

The district court’s ruling appears to be based on the ground that plaintiffs had “adduced no evidence that they endeavor to perform the same functions” as the defendants. 2 The plaintiffs here filed a timely response to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In that response, plaintiffs requested further discovery and…