With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in Plaintiffs’ Rule 56(f) affidavit, even if existent, would not negate Riverside’s state action immunity defense. Plaintiffs argue that it is an abuse of judicial discretion to grant summary judgment without first permitting them an opportunity to conduct discovery on the merits, particularly in a complicated antitrust matter such as the instant case. Plaintiffs’ Response to Riverside’s Motion at 7-11; Plaintiffs’ Reply to Riverside’s Motion at 1-2. However, there is ample ease law in this circuit that supports granting summary judgment without first permitting the non-movant the opportunity to conduct discovery especially where, as here, it is evident from the circumstances of the case that the requested discovery cannot possibly defeat summary judgment. See Carney, supra, at 813 (<HOLDING>); Eastway Construction Corp., supra, at 251

A: holding district courts denial of crossmotion for discovery pursuant to rule 56f and simultaneous grant of summary judgment was proper where defendant who had conducted over 100 interviews and significant academic research was unable to identify any interviewed individual or published source on which he purportedly relied in support of assertions in rule 56f affidavit
B: holding denial of rule 56f motion improper where party moving for summary judgment had not been extremely forthcoming with respect to document requests and interlocutory appeal had interrupted discovery
C: holding that grant of judgment was premature where plaintiff submitted properly supported rule 56f request for further discovery in opposition to defendants motion for summary judgment
D: holding that rejection of the appellants rule 56f request for additional discovery was proper where the information as to which he sought discovery was immaterial to the question of whether he is liable
A.