Opinion ID: 1729272
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Dr. Rechsteiner's Motion for a Continuance

Text: ¶ 90 Finally, we come to the sixth question: Did the circuit court erroneously exercise its discretion in denying Dr. Rechsteiner's motion for a continuance? Dr. Rechsteiner asserts that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion for a continuance. He contends that the circuit court abused its discretion because he had not yet deposed certain persons before the summary judgment hearing. Dr. Rechsteiner asserts that he did not get the chance to depose representatives of Hazelden due to scheduling conflicts and that he was prevented from taking full depositions of the Spooner defendants due to their claims of privilege under Wis. Stat. § 146.38. At the time of the summary judgment hearing on April 7, 2006, Dr. Rechsteiner's motion to compel the witnesses to answer all deposition questions was pending before the court. As a consequence, Dr. Rechsteiner contends that his ability to demonstrate a lack of good faith of the individual Spooner defendants was hampered by his inability to complete discovery prior to the summary judgment hearing. Thus, Dr. Rechsteiner argues that the court of appeals' refusal to reverse the circuit court's denial of his motion for a continuance was inequitable and inappropriate. ¶ 91 Dr. Rechsteiner also stresses that, as a practical matter, there were several months left before the discovery deadline of November 10, 2006, when the circuit court denied his motion. Dr. Rechsteiner also argues that granting his motion for a continuance would not have prejudiced the defendants because there were several months before the scheduled trial date of December 11, 2006. ¶ 92 It is well established in Wisconsin that a continuance is not a matter of right. Robertson-Ryan, 112 Wis.2d at 586, 334 N.W.2d 246 (citations omitted). The decision to deny a continuance is within the discretion of the trial court. Id. at 587, 334 N.W.2d 246. A circuit court's ruling on a motion for a continuance will be set aside only if there is evidence of an [erroneous exercise] of discretion. Id. An [erroneous exercise] of discretion exists if the trial court failed to exercise its discretion or if there was no reasonable basis for its decision. Id. ¶ 93 Several factors are to be balanced in the discretionary decision whether to grant a continuance, including: (1) the length of the delay requested; (2) whether the lead counsel has associates prepared to act in his absence; (3) whether other continuances had been requested and received; (4) the convenience or inconvenience to the parties, witnesses, and the court; and (5) whether the delay seems to be for legitimate reasons. Mogged v. Mogged, 2000 WI App 39, ¶ 14 n. 9, 233 Wis.2d 90, 607 N.W.2d 662 (citing Wedgeworth, 100 Wis.2d at 521, 302 N.W.2d 810). ¶ 94 If we consider the Mogged factors, Dr. Rechsteiner appears to base his arguments on the fourth and fifth factors. He asserts that the circuit court and the parties would not have been inconvenienced by the granting of a continuance because the discovery deadline was November 10, 2006, and the trial date was scheduled for December 11, 2006. Dr. Rechsteiner implies that a continuance would not have forced the court to reschedule these dates. He also suggests that the delay was for legitimate reasons because several discovery matters were pending. ¶ 95 Although the scheduled court dates and Dr. Rechsteiner's pending discovery were relevant to the court's decision, Dr. Rechsteiner has failed to illustrate how the circuit court's exercise of discretion was erroneous. The circuit court demonstrated a reasonable exercise of discretion on the record. The court explained: I think given the longstanding nature of this complaint, the fact that plaintiff actively participated in the scheduling of summary judgment, and . . . the fact that there appears . . . to the court nothing remaining but legal issues to decide, that the time is ripe for summary judgment motion, especially given the scheduling order that is in place. I will hear the motions for summary judgment. And the motion for continuance is denied. ¶ 96 The expanse of time between the commencement of this action and its resolution by summary judgment was significant. Dr. Rechsteiner filed his complaint on March 29, 2005. On November 18, 2005, the Spooner defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. A hearing on this summary judgment motion was scheduled for February 7, 2006. However, that hearing was rescheduled for April 7, 2006, by the parties' agreement to a scheduling order filed January 9, 2006. On January 16, 2006, Dr. Rechsteiner's attorney deposed the Spooner defendants. During those depositions, the defendants' attorney asserted privilege under Wis. Stat. § 146.38. Dr. Rechsteiner did not file a motion to compel discovery at that time. He waited to file a motion to compel until April 5. ¶ 97 Taking into consideration the course of events noted above and weighing the relevant Mogged factors, we conclude that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in denying Dr. Rechsteiner's motion for a continuance. Considering the first factor, the length of the delay requested, Mogged, 233 Wis.2d 90, ¶ 14 n. 9, 607 N.W.2d 662, the fact that the summary judgment hearing had already been rescheduled once by agreement of the parties during the scheduling conference indicates that Dr. Rechsteiner had already received adequate time to prepare his case. This evidence also relates to the third factor  whether other continuances had been requested and received. Id. Finally, since Dr. Rechsteiner delayed filing his motion to compel discovery until immediately before the summary judgment hearing, the circuit court could reasonably have concluded that granting the continuance motion would unnecessarily inconvenience the court and the parties and create unnecessary delay ( Mogged factors four and five). Id. Considering these factors, Dr. Rechsteiner has failed to demonstrate that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in denying his motion for a continuance. ¶ 98 There is another valid reason why the circuit court's denial of Dr. Rechsteiner's motion was reasonable. It was logical for the circuit court to hear the summary judgment motion as scheduled because if there were no triable issues of fact the request for a continuance would be moot. In Jorgensen v. Water Works, Inc., 218 Wis.2d 761, 582 N.W.2d 98 (Ct.App.1998), the court of appeals recognized that a decision to take up summary judgment early on would be based on a reasonable preference for conserving judicial resources. Id. at 773, 582 N.W.2d 98. ¶ 99 In Jorgensen the plaintiffs failed to conduct discovery because they were waiting for the court to grant their request for the appointment of a receiver to conduct discovery. Id. at 771, 582 N.W.2d 98. The defendants were granted summary judgment, and the plaintiffs appealed, claiming the court should have denied the motion or ordered a continuance to permit discovery. Id. at 771-72, 582 N.W.2d 98. The circuit court decided that it made sense to hear the summary judgment motion first, because if there were no triable issues of fact on the claims that the Jorgensens asserted, the request for the appointment of a receiver would be moot. Id. at 773, 582 N.W.2d 98. The court of appeals affirmed the decision as reasonable. Id. ¶ 100 The court of appeals noted that the scheduling order specifically stated that the motion for summary judgment would be heard before the motion for dissolution and appointment of a receiver. Id. at 772, 582 N.W.2d 98. Thus, the court concluded that the Jorgensens and their counsel had ample notice that they should be prepared to oppose the motion for summary judgment before their motion was decided. Id. ¶ 101 In this case, the January 6, 2006, scheduling order set the summary judgment hearing date for April 7, 2006, three months in the future. Dr. Rechsteiner was on notice that any discovery motions required to oppose a motion for summary judgment should be completed before the April date. In fact, the scheduling order specified that all motions for summary judgment or other dispositive motions filed by March 7, 2006, will be heard on April 7, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. However, Dr. Rechsteiner's counsel chose to wait until April 5 to file a motion to compel discovery. On these facts, we conclude that it was reasonable for the circuit court to deny Dr. Rechsteiner's motion for a continuance; therefore, the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion.