IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_______________
No. 98-20348
Summary Calendar
_______________
BARRY JONES, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
KEITH MILLER; KELVIN MILLER; and LOUIS RAY, JR.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
VERSUS
PHYSICIAN SALES & SERVICES, INC.,
a/k/a Physician Sales & Service, Inc.;
THE GIBBONS COMPANY;
and
DOUG KARINS,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(CA-H-97-H-3555)
_________________________
September 16, 1998
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
The plaintiffs were employed by defendant Physician Sales &
Services, Inc., which subsequently obtained evidence that the
plaintiffs were involved in thefts. After one plaintiff was fired
and the district attorney initiated criminal charges that later
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion
should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
were dropped, plaintiffs sued on various theories, including
malicious prosecution.
The only issue is whether the district court erred in entering
summary judgment without granting plaintiffs' requests for
discovery. In its order entered March 5, 1998, entitled “Opinion
on Denial of Amendment of the Judgment,” the district court
carefully explained that it had required defendants to produce
substantial amounts of discovery information to plaintiffs. The
court explained, “The plaintiffs knew the operative facts when they
filed the complaint, and they have had candid disclosure of the
company's records, and yet they still cannot make out a prima facie
case. Further discovery would be futile and wasteful.”
Before entering judgment, the court held a hearing (on January
26, 1998). The transcript of that hearing reveals that, after
listening to plaintiffs' counsel's request, the court carefully
explained why the sought-after information was unnecessary. We
note also that, faced with a pending motion for summary judgment,
plaintiffs failed to make the particularized requests for discovery
that FED. R. CIV. P. 56(f) requires.
There is no hint, from all that has ensued in this case, that
plaintiffs ever could have established any cause of action. We see
no error in the manner in which the district court enabled
plaintiffs to obtain documents and other information. As the court
observed, further proceedings would have been a waste of time.
Essentially for the reasons the district court provided in the
above-referenced order and hearing, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
2