Opinion ID: 1662172
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: request for additional time

Text: DeCamp argues that the district court should have granted additional time so that DeCamp could secure affidavits of expert witnesses, and relies on § 25-1335, which, as noted in Wachtel v. Beer, 229 Neb. 392, 427 N.W.2d 56 (1988), is a verbatim counterpart to Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f). In commenting on the necessary showing to obtain relief under § 25-1335, we stated in Wachtel: The purpose of § 25-1335 is to provide an additional safeguard against an improvident or premature grant of summary judgment. A § 25-1335 affidavit need not contain evidence going to the merits of the case; rather, a § 25-1335 affidavit must contain a reasonable excuse or good cause, explaining why a party is presently unable to offer evidence essential to justify opposition to the motion for summary judgment. Section 25-1335 should be applied with the spirit of liberality. .... A continuance and other judicial action authorized by § 25-1335 are within the discretion of the trial court, whose ruling will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of an abuse of discretion. Wachtel v. Beer, supra at 401-02, 427 N.W.2d at 63. Therefore, DeCamp's claim, based on § 25-1335, succeeds only if we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in ruling that the affidavit by DeCamp's lawyer was an insufficient showing for relief in accordance with § 25-1335. While § 25-1335 provides that a party seeking relief under the statute need only present reasons to excuse the failure to present facts in opposition to a summary judgment motion, Wachtel is clear that the affidavit of the party opposing a summary judgment must contain a reasonable excuse or good cause, explaining why a party is presently unable to offer evidence essential to justify opposition to the motion for summary judgment. (Emphasis supplied.) 229 Neb. at 402, 427 N.W.2d at 63. Section 25-1335 does not provide relief to a party who has been dilatory. See, 10A C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2741 (2d ed. 1983); Landmark Development Corp. v. Chambers Corp., 752 F.2d 369 (9th Cir.1985). DeCamp contends that § 25-1335 does not authorize a court to deny a continuance and enter summary judgment notwithstanding an affidavit filed by a party opposing a summary judgment motion, that is, a court faced with a § 25-1335 affidavit may only refuse summary judgment or grant a continuance. This argument is without merit. Section 25-1335 prescribes a prerequisite for a continuance, or additional time or other relief under the statute, namely, an affidavit stating a reasonable excuse or good cause for a party's inability to oppose a summary judgment motion. Without the appropriate affidavit required by § 25-1335, a party is not entitled to a continuance or additional time to obtain affidavits or discovery to counteract an opposing party's motion for summary judgment. If the affidavit offered in support of a request for a continuance or additional time does not state a reasonable excuse or good cause for a continuance or additional time, a court may deny relief authorized by § 25-1335 and thereafter grant summary judgment if there has been compliance with the other requirements for a summary judgment. Therefore, the essential inquiry in this case is whether the affidavit by DeCamp's lawyer showed a reasonable excuse or good cause for inability to respond to the merits of Lewis' summary judgment motion. In DeCamp's case, the motion for summary judgment was filed more than 3 years after Lewis' operation on DeCamp and over 15 months after DeCamp had filed his lawsuit. In ruling on a request for a continuance or additional time authorized by § 25-1335, a court may consider the complexity of the lawsuit, complications encountered in the litigation, and availability of evidence justifying opposition to a summary judgment motion, provided that a party has not been dilatory in the litigation and has not had adequate time to undertake and complete discovery or otherwise diligently prepare the case for trial. See, First Nat. Bank v. Cities Service, 391 U.S. 253, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968); Timberlane Lbr. Co. v. Bank of America, N.T. & S.A., 549 F.2d 597 (9th Cir.1976); Umdenstock v. American Mtge. & Inv. Co. of Oklahoma City, 495 F.2d 589 (10th Cir. 1974). DeCamp's case is clearly distinguishable from Wachtel v. Beer, 229 Neb. 392, 427 N.W.2d 56 (1988), an action for medical malpractice, in which the defendants filed their summary judgment motions within a year after commencement of the action. Wachtel's lawyer, in an affidavit relative to § 25-1335, stated that he had contacted a medical expert witness who concluded that `there is evidence that the defendants ... did not meet the appropriate standard of care ...' in treating the plaintiff, and further stated that still another expert witness had not had sufficient time to prepare a formal report on the question of the defendant's malpractice. 229 Neb. at 394, 427 N.W.2d at 59. At a hearing related to the defendant's motion for summary judgment, Wachtel's counsel informed that court that, although a medical expert witness had been retained for Wachtel, the defendants' depositions had not as yet been obtained, delaying rendition of an opinion by Wachtel's medical expert. Wachtel subsequently presented her expert witness' affidavit, which contained the medical opinion that `each of the defendants ... deviated from the standard of care' applicable regarding plaintiff's claim. 229 Neb. at 398, 427 N.W.2d at 61. Nevertheless, the court granted summary judgment to the defendants. In substance, Wachtel informed the court that she had a medical expert witness and needed time for the expert to review medical data preparatory to rendering an opinion in an affidavit to oppose the defendants' summary judgment motions. Under the circumstances in Wachtel, we held that the district court abused its discretion in refusing to allow Wachtel additional time to respond to the defendants' motions for summary judgment. In contrast with Wachtel, DeCamp made no showing whatsoever that any expert witness had been retained, or, for that matter, even contacted, to assess the negligence alleged in DeCamp's claim. The first indication that DeCamp had actually contacted an expert was Bloom's affidavit of February 18, 1987, which was filed after expiration of the 18-month deadline for trial in a civil case. See Neb.Ct.R. on Case Progression Standards (rev. 1986). The only reason tendered for DeCamp's inability to present evidence in opposition to Lewis' motion was DeCamp's busy schedule and unavailability for examination by any prospective expert witness. Under the circumstances, sufficient time had elapsed for DeCamp to enlist the aid of an expert witness for the litigation, including a § 25-1335 affidavit, and obtain discovery regarding an expert witness for DeCamp. Without a satisfactory explanation for the absence of an expert witness or discovery, DeCamp's failure to obtain an expert witness relative to discovery or a § 25-1335 affidavit is fairly characterized as dilatory. Lewis was not obliged to endure protracted litigation merely because DeCamp was too busy to assist in preparation of his case against Lewis. The affidavit offered by DeCamp under § 25-1335 fails to show any reasonable excuse or good cause to justify a continuance or allowance of additional time for DeCamp. See Wachtel v. Beer, supra . We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant DeCamp additional time in accordance with § 25-1335.