The non-moving party must present affirmative evidence in order to defeat a properly supported motion for summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324 (1986). It is enough that the evidence consist of the party's own affidavit, or sworn deposition testimony and declaration in opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 324; Foster v. Arcata Assoc., Inc., 772 F.2d 1453, 1461 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1048 (1986). A motion for summary judgment may be continued or denied if the non-moving party has not had an opportunity to make full discovery. Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 326. ------------------------------------------ January 17, 2001 NO. 4-00-0100 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FOURTH DISTRICT In that case, Celotex filed a motion for summary judgment without supporting affidavits. The motion alleged that Catrett had failed to identify in discovery any witnesses who could testify that her deceased husband had been exposed to Celotex's asbestos products. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 320, 91 L. Ed. 2d at 272, 106 S. Ct. at 2551. The district court granted the motion because no showing was made that the decedent had been exposed to Celotex's products. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 319, 91 L. Ed. 2d at 271, 106 S. Ct. at 2550. The court of appeals reversed, holding that Celotex's failure to produce any evidence negating such exposure precluded entry of summary judgment. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 319, 91 L. Ed. 2d at 271, 106 S. Ct. at 2550. The United States Supreme Court found that the court of appeals' decision was contrary to Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. That rule provides that summary judgment is proper if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court found that the plain language of the rule mandates the entry of summary judgment after adequate time for discovery and on motion against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 91 L. Ed. 2d at 273, 106 S. Ct. at 2552. The Court noted that the moving party in a summary judgment procedure always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion and identifying those portions of the pleadings and discovery materials that it believes demonstrates the absence of any genuine issue of material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 91 L. Ed. 2d at 274, 106 S. Ct. at 2553. The Court noted that the action was filed in 1980, and Celotex filed its summary judgment motion in 1981. The parties had conducted discovery, and Catrett could make no claim that she was "railroaded" by a premature motion for summary judgment. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 326, 91 L. Ed. 2d at 276, 106 S. Ct. at 2554. -------------------------------- 1. Quoting the Third Circuit; "the United States Supreme Court has held that a district court must apply Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 56(f) if the opposing party has not made full discovery. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 326. -------------------------------- Filed: April 24, 1995 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 94-1299 (CA-91-115-3-H-D) Sandra K. Hughes, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus Morris Bedsole, etc., et al, The Supreme Court has held that the party moving for summary judgment must demonstrate that "there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case," Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986), and that once the moving party makes such a showing, the non- moving party "may not rest upon mere allegation or denials of his pleading, but must set forth specific facts showing that there is a gen- uine issue for trial." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986). This Court has noted that this obligation of the non- moving party "is particularly strong [as in this case] when the non- moving party bears the burden of proof." Pachaly v. City of Lynchburg, 897 F.2d 723, 725 (4th Cir. 1990). Regarding the author- ity of federal courts to enter summary judgment sua sponte, the Supreme Court has stated that "district courts are widely acknowl- edged to possess the power to enter summary judgments sua sponte, so long as the losing party was on notice that she had to come forward with all of her evidence." Celotex, 477 U.S. at 326. ------------------------------- See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) (court "may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just"); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326 (1986) ("Any potential problem with [] premature motions can be adequately dealt with under Rule 56(f), which allows a summary judgment motion to be denied, or the hearing on the motion continued, if the nonmoving party has not had an opportunity to make full discovery."). ------------------------------- A request for more time stated only in a motion or memorandum in opposition to a motion for summary judgment is insufficient. Rule 56(f) requires that the reasons supporting a request for more time must “appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion.” Thus, a request for more time must be supported by an affidavit. Where more time for development of evidence is needed, the nonmoving party must file some opposition and a request for more time, properly supported by affidavit,