With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". arguments on appeal. First, summary judgment should not have been granted because his motion to compel was still pending. Second, the officers did not have probable cause for his arrest. Third, the individual defendants were not entitled to official immunity on his state law claims. Fourth, the city had waived its sovereign immunity. We address each issue below. A. Generally, “summary judgment should not be granted until the party opposing the motion has had an adequate opportunity for discovery.” Snook v. Trust Co. of Ga. Bank of Savannah, N.A., 859 F.2d 865, 870 (11th Cir.1988). See also Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(f). But summary judgment can be appropriate if the additional discovery is already in the plaintiffs possession. See Leigh v. Warner Bros., Inc., 212 F.3d 1210,1219 (11th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). We review the district court’s decision to

A: holding that the court had an adequate record to grant the defendants motion for summary judgment because the relevant evidence would have been in plaintiffs possession
B: holding that in ruling on a motion for summary judgment the trial court is limited to the grounds raised in the motion
C: holding that a district court may not grant summary judgment without giving plaintiff an opportunity to submit materials admissible in a summary judgment proceeding or allowing a hearing on defendants motion
D: holding that a district court judge to whom a case had been reassigned could grant the defendants motion for summary judgment after the previous judge had denied the motion
A.