Case Title: Donnell Goston, Sr., et al. v. State of Indiana, et al.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 23S-CT-00005

State: indiana

Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Date: 2023-01-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
I N  T H E  
Indiana Supreme Court 
Supreme Court Case No. 23S-CT-5 
Donnell Goston, Sr., et al., 
Appellants-Plaintiffs 
–v– 
State of Indiana, et al., 
Appellees-Defendants 
Decided: January 9, 2023 
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, 
No. 49D06-0910-CT-46723 
The Honorable Kurt Eisgruber, Judge 
On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, 
No. 21A-CT-2484 
Per Curiam Opinion 
Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter concur. 
 
 
 
FILED
C L E R K
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
Jan 09 2023, 10:01 am
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-CT-5 | January 9, 2023 
Page 2 of 3 
Per curiam. 
Indiana Trial Rule 81(A) provides trial courts the general authority to 
adopt “local and administrative district rules not inconsistent with . . . 
these Rules of Trial Procedure or other Rules of the Indiana Supreme 
Court.” More specifically, Trial Rule 16(J) provides trial courts the 
authority to “establish by rule a pre-trial calendar on which actions may 
be placed for consideration” and to enter pre-trial orders controlling the 
course of proceedings “unless modified thereafter to prevent manifest 
injustice.” Pursuant to these trial rules, Marion County has promulgated 
Local Rule LR49-TR16 207(B), which governs case management orders 
and permits Marion County courts to establish limitations “on the time to 
file all pre-trial motions.” 
In this case, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment after 
the deadline for dispositive motions that had been established in a case 
management order. The trial court eventually granted that motion. On 
appeal, the plaintiffs argued in part that the trial court erred in 
entertaining a motion for summary judgment after the deadline for 
dispositive motions had passed. Affirming the trial court’s summary 
judgment order, the Court of Appeals held among other things that Trial 
Rule 56(B), which permits a motion for summary judgment to be made by 
a defending party “at any time,” takes precedence over Local Rule 207(B). 
On this procedural issue, the Court of Appeals reached the right result, 
but for the wrong reason. The trial court acted within its discretion to 
consider the defendants’ summary judgment motion, not because Trial 
Rule 16 and Local Rule 207(B) conflict with Trial Rule 56(B), but because 
they work in harmony. As the plaintiffs write in their transfer petition, 
Rule 16 gives the Trial Court discretion and authority to set 
and alter dispositive motion deadlines in a way that allows 
summary judgment motions to be filed “at any time.” This 
does not mean that deadlines may not be placed on 
summary judgment motions, nor does it mean that local 
rules allowing such deadlines are categorically invalid. It 
means that summary judgment motions can be filed “at any 
time” before the dispositive motion deadline expires, or “at 
Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-CT-5 | January 9, 2023 
Page 3 of 3 
any time” after the deadline expires so long as the Trial 
Court finds it will prevent manifest injustice. In this way, 
Rules 16 and 56 work together . . . . 
(Trans. Pet. at 11-12). Here, the trial court appropriately exercised the 
discretion afforded by Trial Rule 16 in a manner that balanced the goals of 
doing justice to the merits of the case, minimizing the risk of prejudice to 
the plaintiffs, and maintaining orderly and efficient court proceedings. See 
Daub v. Daub, 629 N.E.2d 873, 875 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994).  
We grant transfer at the request of both the plaintiffs and the 
defendants to clarify that these rules work in harmony and are not in 
conflict with one another. No other grounds for transfer have been 
asserted, and in all other respects we summarily affirm the Court of 
Appeals’ opinion. See Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A)(2). 
Rush, C.J., and Massa, Slaughter, Goff, and Molter, JJ., concur. 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  AP P EL LA N T S 
Nathaniel Lee 
Faith E. Alvarez 
Lee Cossell & Crowley, LLP 
Indianapolis, Indiana 
A TT O R N E YS F O R  AP P EL LE E S 
Theodore E. Rokita 
Attorney General of Indiana 
Frances Barrow 
Aaron T. Craft 
Benjamin Jones 
Deputy Attorneys General 
Indianapolis, Indiana