Opinion ID: 1602226
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the circuit court abused its discretion in rejecting the affidavit of accident reconstructionist Brett Alexander.

Text: ¶ 12. The January 21, 2005, order of the circuit court held the motion for summary judgment in abeyance. On April 20, 2006, Kilhullen filed Alexander's affidavit, well before the June 12, 2006, hearing on the motion for summary judgment. [11] Nonetheless, the circuit court found Alexander's affidavit inadmissible, determining that it was impermissible further discovery and irrelevant under Mississippi Rule of Evidence 402. ¶ 13. Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) states, in pertinent part, that [t]he adverse party prior to the day of the [summary judgment] hearing may serve opposing affidavits. Miss. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Additionally, this Court has stated that [w]e ... require that, when an expert's opinion is challenged, the party sponsoring the expert's challenged opinion be given a fair opportunity to respond to the challenge. The provision of a fair opportunity to respond is part of the trial court's gate keeping responsibility.... Smith v. Clement, 983 So.2d 285, 2008 Miss. LEXIS 172 at  (Miss.2008). As Alexander's affidavit was filed nearly two months prior to the June 12, 2006, hearing, this Court finds that its submission was permissible under the twenty-four-hour rule of Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). The circuit court erroneously applied the rules of discovery, see Mississippi Rules of Civil Procedure 26-37, when the rule regarding affidavits filed in opposition to a motion for summary judgment was applicable. See Miss. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Accordingly, by failing to acknowledge the applicability of Rule 56(c) or to provide Kilhullen with a fair opportunity to respond to Halfacre's challenged opinion, this Court concludes that the circuit court abused its discretion in finding Alexander's affidavit inadmissible.