Additional Time for Discovery Sample Clauses

Additional Time for Discovery. Xxxxx submits a declaration seeking additional time for discovery on its defenses and claims against Seagate. A “party opposing summary judgment is re- quired to file an affidavit . . . showing what specific facts further discovery might uncover.” Roark v. City of Xxxxx, 189 F.3d 758, 762 (8th Cir. 1999). In Anuforo v. Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries. . . .” U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8. Xxxxx’s argument as to this clause is not clear, but it appears that he creates a distinction between owner- ship and inventorship, and argues that inventorship cannot be transferred, even though ownership of a patent may be assigned. Because, pursuant to his reading, the patent clause primarily pro- tects inventor’s rights, he argues that any theories that detract from the right of inventorship run afoul of the Constitution. Commissioner, the district court denied a party’s re- quest for additional time to take a witness’s testimony because the request lacked specific facts and a descrip- tion of “what information further discovery might re- veal.”6 614 F.3d 799, 808 (8th Cir. 2011) (affirming). Similarly, Xxxxx’s assertions lack specificity. He claims that he must investigate “[t]he true facts behind Xxxxxxx’s failure to move promptly to seek the return of documents” and take additional depositions. (Mem. in Opp’n to Mot. for Summ. J., Ex. D ¶ 4, July 12, 2011, Docket No. 189-4.) Shukh does not indicate what infor- mation might be uncovered or how the “true facts” of Seagate’s purported delay might be relevant to the counterclaims. Accordingly, the Court finds that Xxxxx has not adequately supported his request for addi- tional time for discovery.