State the full circumstance, to get a continuance.

In Gibson v. Stonebriar Mall LLC, a premises-liability claim, the plaintiff sought a continuance; her motion “asserted she needed more time to obtain the  depositions of (1) a Nordstrom employee who allegedly received information regarding a patron falling in the same area prior to her fall; (2) the Mydatt security guard or other employee who treated the sidewalk; and (3) a Stonebriar corporate representative,” as well as “identification of mall management assigned to respond to the scene,” and “information that Mydatt’s contract with Stonebriar may have been conveyed to another corporation prior to the incident.” The supporting declaration from her attorney did not “explain[] that Gibson used diligence in obtaining this discovery or was denied the discovery,” and also “d[id  not explain the materiality, relevance, and purpose of the discovery sought other than stating, ‘These are material fact witnesses who have yet to be identified and deposed.'” For this and other reasons, there was no abuse of discretion in denying the continuance. No. 05-17-01242-CV (Feb. 8, 2019) (mem. op.)