1. Whether a federal court violates Due Process Clause and the protections of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) when it denies a nonmovant's request for limited, outcome determinative discovery and proceeds to enter summary judgment affecting asserted property rights, where the district court denied Rule 56(d) in a summary order, and the court of appeals affirmed even though it acknowledged that "[w]ithout offering an explanation as to why, the district court denied" the Rule 56(d) motion.

2. Whether, absent an express order shortening the Federal Rule's response period, a party may refuse to answer written discovery served before a court-ordered discovery deadline by claiming the deadline required "completion" of discovery, so that service near the deadline is "untimely" because responses would fall after the cutoff, and whether summary judgment may be affirmed after the opposing party refused to answer Requests for Admission served a few days before the close of discovery, where the requested admissions sought judicial authorization and service/notice proof for an alleged writ of seizure and sheriff's sale central to the claimed chain of title.

Whether a federal court violates the Due Process Clause and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) by denying a nonmovant's request for discovery and entering summary judgment affecting property rights without explanation, and whether summary judgment may be affirmed when a party refuses to answer discovery requests served near the discovery deadline by claiming untimeliness