b. Related Decisions
We review for abuse of discretion a district court's ruling on a motion for additional discovery pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 56(f). Stanley v. Holms, 1999 MT 41, ¶ 19, 293 Mont. 343, 975 P.2d 1242. A district court does not abuse its discretion in denying a Rule 56(f) motion where the party opposing the motion for summary judgment fails to establish how the proposed discovery could preclude summary judgment. Stanley, ¶ 19; see also Richards v. Cnty. of Missoula, 2009 MT 453, ¶ 33, 354 Mont. 334, 340, 223 P.3d 878, 882-83.
We review evidentiary rulings made in the context of a summary judgment proceeding de novo, in order to determine whether the evidentiary requirements for summary judgment have been satisfied. PPL Mont., L.L.C. v. State, 2010 MT 64, ¶ 85, 355 Mont. 402, 229 P.3d 421; see also In re Estate of Harmon, 2011 MT 84A, ¶ 14, 360 Mont. 150, 153.
We generally review an evidentiary ruling for an abuse of discretion. Harris v. Hanson, 2009 MT 13, ¶ 18, 349 Mont. 29, 201 P.3d 151. Rulings on the admissibility of evidence sometimes implicate summary judgment. To the extent that the expert testimony ruling is based purely on an interpretation of the evidentiary rules, however, we review that interpretation, like any other question of law, for correctness. In re T.W., 2006 MT 153, ¶ 8, 332 Mont. 454, 139 P.3d 810. McClue v. Safeco Ins. Co., 2015 MT 222, ¶ 14.
We review evidentiary rulings made in the context of a summary judgment proceeding de novo, and need not defer to the judgments and decision of the district court, in order to determine whether evidentiary requirements for summary judgment have been satisfied. Smith v. Farmers Union Mut. Ins. Co., 2011 MT 216, ¶ 15, 361 Mont. 516, 260 P.3d 163; Harmon, ¶ 14; PPL Mont., L.L.C. v. State, 2010 MT 64, ¶ 84, 355 Mont. 402, 229 P.3d 421, rev'd on other grounds in PPL Mont., LLC v. Montana, 565 U.S. 576, 132 S. Ct. 1215 (2010); Boyne USA, Inc. v. Lone Moose Meadows, LLC, 2010 MT 133, ¶ 11, 356 Mont. 408, 235 P.3d 1269.