And so we really need to have that issue heard first before we really go on to address the other issues that they're raising with regards to their summary judgment motion. And I do believe that these are separate, independent motions because if we're going to be allowed to amend, then much of what they're saying, if not all of what they're saying, is going to not be applicable right now. The trial court then orally denied Plaintiff's motion to amend the discovery scheduling order. Defendants contended Plaintiff had argued against summary judgment, and had therefore rested her case prior to seeking voluntary dismissal. The trial court agreed, and granted Defendants' motions for summary judgment.
Orders involving discovery matters are ordinarily within the trial court's discretion.
Plaintiff's contention that no delay would result, however, is speculative at best. Although Plaintiff's proposed schedule is presumably feasible for Plaintiff, it may not be feasible for Defendants, who would need to schedule depositions of any new experts Plaintiff named. Accordingly, the trial court was well within its discretion to deny amendment of the discovery scheduling order in this case. 24 N.C. App. For purposes of summary judgment motions, this Court holds that the record must show that plaintiff has been given the opportunity at the hearing to introduce any evidence relating to the motion and to argue his position.