With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Jackson Court Condominiums v. City of New Orleans, 874 F.2d 1070, 1081 (5th Cir.1989). "[A] genuine disp 953 F.2d at 997; Lechuga v. Southern Pacific Transportation Company, 949 F.2d at 794; Reese v. Anderson, 926 F.2d at 498-99; and Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d at 1195. 49 . See Stults v. Conoco, Inc., 76 F.3d at 656; Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d at 1537; and Topaliari v. Ehrman, 954 F.2d 1125, 1131 (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 825, 113 S.Ct. 82, 121 L.Ed.2d 46 (1992). 50 . See Forsyth v. Barr, 19 F.3d at 1537; and Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc., 953 F.2d at 915 n. 7. 51 . See Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit, 28 F.3d 1388, 1396-97 (5th Cir.1994); Cormier v. Pennzoil, 969 F.2d at 1561; Reese v. Anderson, 926 F.2d at 499 & n. 5, (<HOLDING>); Fontenot v. Upjohn Co., 780 F.2d at 1195; and

A: holding that general allegations of a need for additional discovery will not suffice the person presenting such a claim must show what discovery has been obtained why it is inadequate and the what additional information he expects to obtain from additional discovery
B: holding that entry of summary judgment while a motion for additional discovery was pending should be construed as an implicit denial of the motion for additional discovery
C: holding that it was within the trial courts discretion to refuse any additional discovery and that the courts refusal to allow additional discovery was not an abuse of discretion
D: holding that under rule 56f nonmoving party seeking additional discovery must demonstrate precisely how additional discovery will lead to a genuine issue of material fact
A.