Page:Touhy v. Walgreen Company.pdf/8

 about Ms. Touhy's condition. Without some other (competent) evidence pointing to a wrongful disclosure by Ms. Whitlock or Walgreen, Walgreen argued that summary judgment should be entered.

Before the district court could rule on Walgreen's motion for summary judgment, Ms. Touhy filed a motion to compel, challenging the adequacy of Walgreen's responses to her discovery requests. In separate orders, the district court denied Ms. Touhy's motion to compel and granted Walgreen's motion for summary judgment. With respect to the discovery motion, the district court found that Walgreen's productions constituted an adequate response to most of Ms. Touhy's requests and held that virtually all of the contested requests were overly broad. With respect to the motion for summary judgment, the district court agreed with Walgreen that Ms. Touhy's case rested on inadmissible hearsay insufficient to establish a triable question for a jury. In this appeal, Ms. Touhy challenges both the district court's denial of her motion to compel and its order granting summary judgment in favor of Walgreen. We address each in turn.

II

We review a district court's discovery rulings, including the denial of a motion to compel, for abuse of discretion. ''Soma Med. Int'l v. Standard Chartered Bank,'' 196 F.3d 1292, 1300 (10th Cir. 1999). Under this standard, we will reverse a district court only if it "exceeded the bounds of permissible choice, given the facts and applicable law in the case at hand." 'United States v. McComb, 519 F.3d -8-