Opinion ID: 1384706
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Procedural Sufficiency

Text: Appellants contend that the trial court erred in granting appellee's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of piercing the corporate veil because the depositions relied upon by the court were not properly filed until after the court had signed the order granting partial summary judgment. Rule 56(c), W.R.C.P. provides: The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (Emphasis supplied.) Likewise, Rule 302(b) of the Uniform Rules for the District Courts of the State of Wyoming provides: At the time of filing a motion for summary judgment the movant shall designate and file relevant portions of the discovery documents relied upon. (Emphasis supplied.) While the record reveals a lack of compliance with these requirements, it also reveals that the trial court had requested and received the depositions in question at a motion hearing on October 31, 1985, some eight months before entering the partial summary judgment order. The trial court explained the situation as follows: THE COURT: Gentlemen, I'll tell you something, when we heard the Motions originally in Douglas  and this may be the problem which I'm not going to get this far enmeshed in again in handling a case long distance  I had the depositions. I thought the depositions were  Because in Douglas there is just a local rule, the guys ask to have the depositions filed and I allow them to be filed because I like the stuff to be in the record when I'm considering any kind of a Motion that has to do with depositions or any kind of discovery. Because we argued the Motion that day and used the depositions in the argument, and so on, I guess I assumed that they were a matter of record. Because the case was not in Douglas, then my gal sent them back to Gillette, I assumed, to be put in the file. But, you know, they weren't, because the Motion wasn't made. But I am going to admit them   . It is clear in this instance that appellee's failure to file the depositions was merely a technical imperfection not affecting a substantial right of appellants. Appellants have failed to demonstrate that they were prejudiced by lack of notice, or for that matter, in any way. It has been said that [p]erfection is an aspiration, but the failure to achieve it in the judicial process, as elsewhere in life, does not, absent injury, require a repeat performance. Miles v. M/V Mississippi Queen, 753 F.2d 1349, 1352 (5th Cir.1985). We find no reversible error in the procedure followed by the court in ruling on appellee's motion for summary judgment. [1]