Abbey Adams Logo

Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982

  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

  • Bloglovin
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Phone
  • Home
  • Locations
    • Where We Practice in Florida
    • Where We Practice In Illinois
  • Practices
  • Attorneys
    • David J. Abbey
    • Jeffrey M. Adams
    • Bruce D. Burk
    • Robert P. Byelick
    • Jaime Eagan
    • Jennifer J. Kennedy
    • John D. Kiernan (1947-2016)
    • V. Joseph Mueller
    • Steven A. Ochsner
    • Alexis C. Upton
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact Us

March 20, 2014 by admin

Discovery may not be propounded after Motion for Summary Judgment filed and set for hearing solely to thwart such summary judgment; however, otherwise appropriate discovery should precede ruling on Summary Judgment

39 Fla. L. Weekly D556a


Torts — Civil procedure — Summary judgment — Discovery
pending — Entry of summary judgment in favor of defendant was premature where
plaintiff’s counsel was still seeking to depose witness whose identity was not
revealed by defendant until defendant filed its motion for summary judgment —
Although non-moving party cannot thwart summary judgment hearing by initiating
discovery after motion for summary judgment is filed and hearing scheduled, it
did not appear in instant case that pending discovery was scheduled to thwart
summary judgment hearing

DORA HARPER, Appellant, v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, L.P., Appellee. 5th
District. Case No. 5D13-1085. Opinion filed March 14, 2014. Appeal from the
Circuit Court for Orange County, Donald E. Grincewicz, Judge. Counsel: Danilo
Cruz Carino, of The Pendás Law Firm, Tampa, for Appellant. Elliot H. Scherker,
Brigid F. Cech Samole, and Jay A. Yagoda, of Greenberg Traurig, P.A., Miami, for
Appellee.
(ORFINGER, J.) Dora Harper appeals an adverse summary judgment in favor of
Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. Harper argues that the trial court erred by entering
the summary judgment because discovery was still ongoing and material issues of
fact existed. We agree that summary judgment was prematurely entered and
reverse.
Harper fell at a Wal-Mart store, and subsequently brought a suit against
Wal-Mart. After Harper’s suit against Wal-Mart had been pending for just over
one year, Wal-Mart filed a motion for summary judgment supported by two
affidavits. Harper deposed the two affiants. Shortly thereafter, Wal-Mart
withdrew one of the affidavits because, as was shown at the deposition, the
affiant had no relevant personal knowledge of the issues in dispute. Wal-Mart
then filed a new affidavit from a witness to the incident who was employed by a
Wal-Mart contractor. Wal-Mart had earlier disclosed that a Wal-Mart contractor’s
employee might have witnessed the incident, but did not reveal the witness’s
identity until it filed its motion for summary judgment, supplemented later by
the new affidavit. Harper’s counsel promptly attempted to arrange the deposition
of the newly-disclosed witness and told Wal-Mart’s attorney that he would seek
to continue the summary judgment hearing if the deposition could not be
arranged. The deposition could not be arranged at a mutually convenient time
and, as promised, Harper’s counsel filed a motion to continue the hearing. The
court denied the motion without elaboration.
The question before us is whether the trial court abused its discretion by
denying Harper’s motion to continue the summary judgment hearing in order to
allow Harper to depose the newly-disclosed witness. A trial court’s decision to
grant a continuance of a summary judgment hearing is discretionary. However,
that discretion is tempered if discovery is not completed and is necessary for
the disposition of the case. Smith v. Smith, 734 So. 2d 1142, 1144 (Fla.
5th DCA 1999). We agree with Wal-Mart that after a motion for summary judgment
is filed and scheduled, the non-moving party cannot thwart the summary judgment
hearing by initiating discovery. See Vills. at Mango Key Homeowner’s
Ass’n v. Hunter Dev., Inc.
, 699 So. 2d 337, 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). That
general rule notwithstanding, under the facts of this case, it does not appear
that the pending discovery was scheduled to thwart the summary judgment hearing.
Thus, we conclude that entry of summary judgment in this case was premature.
See Arguelles v. City of Orlando, 855 So. 2d 1202, 1203 (Fla. 5th
DCA 2003). Because Harper was entitled to complete her discovery before the
trial court considered Wal-Mart’s motion for summary judgment, we reverse and
remand for further proceedings. In doing so, we express no opinion on the merit
of Wal-Mart’s summary judgment motion.
REVERSED and REMANDED. (GRIFFIN and BERGER, JJ., concur.)

* * *

Filed Under: Articles

Primary Sidebar

Blog Archives

  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013

Footer

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney. opens in a new windowAbbey, Adams, Byelick, & Mueller XML Sitemap Index

Copyright © 2021 · Abbey Adams Byelick & Mueller, LLP · All Rights Reserved · Defending Liability, Workers' Compensation, Employment Claims and Appeals Since 1982