 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kristian v. Youngstown Orthopedic Association12/15/2004
e to that party." Welco Industries, Inc. v. Applied Cos. (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 344, 346, 617 N.E.2d 1129.
{ } These factors make it clear that summary judgment should be granted with caution, being careful to resolve doubts in favor of the nonmoving party. Id.
{ } The party seeking summary judgment has the initial burden of informing the court of the basis for the motion and identifying those portions of the record showing that there are no genuine issues of material fact on the essential elements of the nonmoving party's claim. Dresher v. Burt (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 280, 293, 662 N.E.2d 264. The movant must be able to point to some evidence of the type listed in Civ.R. 56(C) that affirmatively demonstrates that summary judgment is warranted. Id.
{ } If this initial burden is met, the nonmoving party has a reciprocal burden to, "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial and, if the non-movant does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered[.]" Id.
{ } In the present case, Appellants argue that the trial court should not have decided the summary judgment motion without first allowing full discovery. Contrary to Appellants' argument, Civ.R. 56 does not mandate that full discovery be completed before a motion for summary judgment may be granted. In fact, Civ.R. 56(B) provides:
{ } "A party against whom a claim, counterclaim, or cross-claim is asserted or a declaratory judgment is sought may, at any time, move with or without supporting affidavits for a summary judgment in the party's favor as to all or any part of the claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or declaratory judgment action. If the action has been set for pretrial or trial, a motion for summary judgment may be made only with leave of court." (Emphasis added.)
{ } If a motion for summary judgment has been filed before the plaintiff has an opportunity to learn the facts of the case sufficient to oppose a motion for summary judgment, Civ.R. 56(F) provides a specific remedy:
{ } "Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion for summary judgment that the party cannot for sufficient reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party's opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just." (Emphasis added.)
{ } The determination as to whether to allow additional time to permit a party opposing summary judgment to conduct discovery is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Banfield v. Turner (1999), 131 Ohio App.3d 213, 216, 722 N.E.2d 136. The trial court has broad discretion in regulating the discovery process. State ex rel. Grandview Hosp. & Med. Ctr. v. Gorman (1990), 51 Ohio St.3d 94, 96, 554 N.E.2d 1297. A trial court's ruling dealing with the discovery process will not be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion that prejudicially affects the substantial rights of the parties. State ex rel. Daggett v. Gessaman (1973), 34 Ohio St.2d 55, 58, 63 O.O.2d 88, 295 N.E.2d 659.
{ } The record reveals that Appellants ignored the requirements of Civ.R. 56(F). Specifically, Appellants did not submit an affidavit setting forth sufficient reasons why they could not present facts sufficient to justify their opposition to summary judgment. The trial court initially granted Appellants an extension of time to file evidence in rebuttal to Dr. Stefko's affidavit, despite their failure to follow Civ.R. 56(F). Instead of submitting any evidence, Appellants chose instead to continue requesting more time to complete
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|