Opinion ID: 2631159
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: outstanding discovery motions

Text: ¶ 40 The trial court concluded that Brown's motions to continue and vacate the scheduling order were rendered moot by its grant of summary judgment, and therefore, it did not decide those motions. Brown did not contest mootness, so the court of appeals evaluated Brown's arguments that the trial court's grant of summary judgment was erroneously premature since Brown had not completed discovery. We review the court of appeals' decision. ¶ 41 Brown claims on certiorari that her exigent circumstances warranted a continuance pursuant to rule 40(b) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. She claims that the court of appeals erred in failing to find that the following alleged circumstances warranted a continuance: (1) her counsel was forced to withdraw and was subsequently disbarred; (2) her replacement counsel had a trial scheduled for the same day; (3) Chick-Fil-A failed to provide adequate discovery responses; and (4) without adequate discovery responses she was unable to fully investigate her claims. We have addressed the third and fourth issues with the rule 56(f) motion supra. Therefore, we address only Brown's claims concerning her counsel's withdrawal and subsequent conflict. ¶ 42 Rule 40(b) provides that a court may in its discretion, and upon such terms as may be just, . . . postpone a trial or proceeding upon good cause shown. If the motion is made upon the ground of the absence of evidence, such motion shall also set forth the materiality of the evidence expected to be obtained and shall show that due diligence has been used to procure it. Utah R.Civ.P. 40(b). ¶ 43 However, [t]rial courts have substantial discretion in deciding whether to grant continuances, Christenson v. Jewkes, 761 P.2d 1375, 1377 (Utah 1988), and their decision will not be overturned unless that discretion has been clearly abused, see State v. Cabututan, 861 P.2d 408, 413 (Utah 1993). Furthermore, a party is not necessarily entitled to a continuance because counsel is unable to be present on the date set for trial. See Griffiths v. Hammon, 560 P.2d 1375, 1376 (Utah 1977); see also Lundgreen v. Lundgreen, 112 Utah 31, 34, 184 P.2d 670, 671-72 (1947) (affirming denial of continuance when attorney in law firm had conflict and claimed no other members of firm could familiarize themselves in adequate time); 17 C.J.S. Continuances § 57 (1999) (stating that absence of one of several counsel not grounds for continuance especially where no showing of diligence to acquaint remaining counsel). Nevertheless, an abuse of discretion may be found if a party has made timely objections, [has] given necessary notice, and has made a reasonable effort to have the trial date changed for good cause. Id. ¶ 44 Brown argues that because her counsel was forced to withdraw and replacement counsel had a conflict with the trial date, she was entitled to a continuance. Brown's counsel allege several internal complications within their firm; however, the record shows that one of Brown's attorneys withdrew on December 4, 1996, and Gray entered his appearance for Brown on December 2, 1996. Mismash entered her appearance on March 27, 1997. Waddoups allegedly reentered the case in April 1997 and moved for a continuance on April 14. It was Waddoups who had the conflict. ¶ 45 At the October 30, 1996, scheduling hearing, trial was set for June 3, 1997. When Gray entered his appearance in December of 1996, he should have been aware of that fact. If Gray was not going to be able to represent Brown at the June 3 trial, the trial court should have been notified before April 14. ¶ 46 Waddoups, who allegedly reentered the case in April of 1997, claims he had a conflict. However, Brown is represented by two other lawyers of record. In fact, Brown is represented by a firm of lawyers, and those lawyers have a responsibility to protect the interests of their client. See Utah Rules of Professional Responsibility Rules 1.3, 5.1. In light of this, we affirm the court of appeals' decision that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering Chick-Fil-A's motion for summary judgment despite the pending discovery motions.