Opinion ID: 1740561
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the sufficiency of the boyleses' response to schlumberger's motion for summary judgment.

Text: ¶ 10. Schlumberger contends that the Boyleses' response was insufficient under the current law of this State. Indeed, M.R.C.P. 56(c) provides that summary judgment shall be granted by a court if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with 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. M.R.C.P. 56(c). As we have ruled: When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in Rule 56, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings[;] his response must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him.... An issue of fact may be present where there is more than one reasonable interpretation of undisputed testimony, where materially different but reasonable inferences may be drawn from uncontradicted evidentiary facts, or when the purported establishment of the facts has been sufficiently incomplete or inadequate that the trial judge cannot say with reasonable confidence that the full facts of the matter have been disclosed. Miller v. Meeks, 762 So.2d 302, 304-05 (Miss.2000) (citing Dennis v. Searle 457 So.2d 941, 944 (Miss.1984)). ¶ 11. The Boyleses' response to Schlumberger's motion was simply insufficient. All the Boyleses did was argue that they did not know of their claims against Schlumberger until the Collins' deposition and attach the first dated page of the deposition. They wholly failed to support their argument with hard evidence such as affidavits that they did not know of their claims against Schlumberger until the deposition. Clearly, the Boyleses rest[ed] upon the mere allegations or denials of [their] pleadings, and did not set forth specific facts which would create a genuine issue of material fact and which would preclude the entry of judgment on the pleadings. A bare statement that the discovery rule proof was obvious to all does not defeat a motion for summary judgment.