Opinion ID: 2158931
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Motion to Continue

Text: [¶ 12] Bispham contends that the court should have granted him a continuance because of his emotional distress due to September 11 and the stress the legal system has caused over the last ten years. [¶ 13] We review a court's decision to deny a request for a continuance for an abuse of discretion. Provenzano v. Deloge, 2000 ME 149, ¶ 11, 755 A.2d 549, 551. A party seeking a continuance has the burden of showing sufficient grounds for granting the motion, id. (quoting Champagne v. Mid-Maine Med. Ctr., 1998 ME 87, ¶ 19, 711 A.2d 842, 848), and must make known to the presiding justice substantial reasons why granting the continuance would serve to further justice, Provenzano, 2000 ME 149, ¶ 11, 755 A.2d at 551 (quoting Farrell v. Theriault, 464 A.2d 188, 192 (Me.1983)). We examine whether the denial of the motion for a continuance had any adverse prejudicial effect on the substantial rights of the movant. Magno v. Town of Freeport, 486 A.2d 137, 140 (Me.1985). Each case must depend largely upon its own facts and circumstances. Id. Rule 40(b) of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure provides: A motion for continuance of an action shall be made not less than 4 days before the date set for commencement of trial in the action; [3] but if the cause or ground of the motion is not then known, the motion may be made as soon as practicable after the cause or ground becomes known.... M.R. Civ. P. 40(b). Also, 14 M.R.S.A. § 3125(3) (Supp.2001), provides: A continuance of the disclosure hearing may be granted for good cause. [4] [¶ 14] Here, the court did not exceed the bounds of its discretion in denying Bispham's second motion for a continuance. The court recognized and accommodated Bispham's anxiety by stating that he could have time, should he need it, to review documents. Had there been evidence of Bispham's inability to proceed, the court may have erred in going forward; however, the transcript reveals that Bispham competently represented himself and his testimony was lucid. The court, having viewed Bispham's demeanor firsthand, did not express any concern about Bispham's mental state. Additionally, Bispham already had the benefit of one continuance that yielded extra time to prepare for the hearing. Thus, the court did not exceed the bounds of its discretion in denying the motion.