Opinion ID: 4580085
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: standard of review

Text: “On appeal from the grant of a motion for summary judgment, this Court utilizes the same standard of review used by the district court originally ruling on the motion.” Mattox v. Life Care Ctrs. of Am., Inc., 157 Idaho 468, 472, 337 P.3d 627, 631 (2014) (quoting Arregui v. Gallegos-Main, 153 Idaho 801, 804, 291 P.3d 1000, 1003 (2012)). Summary judgment is granted “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” I.R.C.P. 56(a). When considering “whether the evidence shows a genuine issue of material fact, the trial court must liberally construe the facts, and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Mattox, 157 Idaho at 473, 337 P.3d at 632 (citation omitted). “The admissibility of expert testimony, however, is a threshold matter that is distinct from whether the testimony raises genuine issues of material fact sufficient to preclude summary judgment.” Arregui, 153 Idaho at 804, 291 P.3d at 1003 (citing Dulaney v. St. Alphonsus Reg’l Med. Ctr., 137 Idaho 160, 163, 45 P.3d 816, 819 (2002)). On the threshold issue of admissibility, “the liberal construction and reasonable inferences standard does not apply . . . .” Mattox, 157 Idaho at 473, 337 P.3d at 632 (citing Dulaney, 137 Idaho at 163, 45 P.3d at 819). Instead, “the trial court must look at the witness’ affidavit or deposition testimony and determine whether it alleges facts which, if taken as true, would render the testimony of that witness admissible.” Id. We will not disturb evidentiary rulings of the district court “unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion.” Navo v. Bingham Mem’l Hosp., 160 Idaho 363, 369–70, 373 P.3d 681, 687– 88 (2016) (quoting Mattox, 157 Idaho at 473, 337 P.3d at 632). We review a district court’s discretionary decisions under the four-part standard set out in Lunneborg v. My Fun Life, 163 5 Idaho 856, 421 P.3d 187 (2018). Under the Lunneborg standard, we ask whether the district court: “(1) correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) acted within the outer boundaries of its discretion; (3) acted consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (4) reached its decision by the exercise of reason.” Id. at 863, 421 P.3d at 194 (citation omitted).