Opinion ID: 1104807
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Summary Judgment Based on Violation of the Discovery Deadline.

Text: ¶ 14. The basis for the trial court's grant of summary judgment was that the plaintiffs' supplemental designation of Dr. Hansen, as well as his supplemental affidavit, were provided outside the discovery deadlines. [1] In the order granting summary judgment in favor of BMH-D, the trial judge correctly stated that the plaintiffs are required to support their claims with medical expert testimony. The order went on to say that [w]hile the Plaintiffs attempted to present to the Court supplemental opinions of Dr. Hansen by affidavit, this Court struck that attempted supplementation, and therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to show that the Defendants did anything or failed to do anything that caused injury or damages to Mr. Young. The orders granting summary judgment in favor of Dr. Smith, Dr. Bray, and Dr. Meacham mirrored this language. ¶ 15. However, the scheduling order provided that all discovery shall be completed on or before October 15, 2005, but made no mention of supplemental discovery. By holding that the plaintiffs' supplemental expert designation violated the scheduling order, the trial court erroneously equated a discovery deadline with a deadline for supplementation of an expert opinion. ¶ 16. To the contrary, Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f)(1) requires that a party seasonably supplement a prior response with any question addressed to ... (B) the identity of each person expected to be called as an expert witness at trial, the subject matter on which the person is expected to testify, and the substance of the testimony. While there is no hardline rule as to what constitutes seasonableness, the focus is to avoid unfair surprise and allow the other side enough time to prepare for trial. Thompson v. Patino, 784 So.2d 220, 223 (Miss.2001) (quoting Eastover Bank for Sav. v. Hall, 587 So.2d 266, 272 (Miss.1991); citing Foster v. Noel, 715 So.2d 174, 182-83 (Miss. 1998); West v. Sanders Clinic for Women, P.A., 661 So.2d 714, 721 (Miss.1995); Motorola Commc'ns & Elecs., Inc. v. Wilkerson, 555 So.2d 713, 717-18 (Miss.1989); Jones v. Hatchett, 504 So.2d 198 (Miss. 1987)). In the present case, no trial date had been set, and Dr. Hansen's supplemental affidavit did nothing to change his original opinions. As noted above, the only difference between the supplemental affidavit and the original affidavit was his opinion that the EKG was wrongly interpreted. ¶ 17. In addition, there is nothing in our rules, absent unusual circumstances and a showing of prejudice, that would prevent a plaintiff from responding to a motion for summary judgment with a supplemental affidavit. See M.R.C.P. 26(f). The plaintiffs filed the supplemental opinion in affidavit form within the deadline established under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c),(e). The trial court erred by refusing to consider Dr. Hansen's supplemental affidavit in determining whether there was a genuine issue of material fact sufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. ¶ 18. Finally, the trial court was incorrect in holding that Dr. Hansen had completely withdrawn his original expert opinion. This finding was based on answers given in Dr. Hansen's deposition that were in response to hypothetical questions. Dr. Hansen was asked to assume that the EKG report was valid and that it was properly interpreted. His responses to questions not based on established fact did not alter his expert opinions. In addition, none of the defendants presented the trial court with evidence that the EKG was valid and properly interpreted, a fact that was necessary to entitle the defendants to a favorable ruling. ¶ 19. Accordingly, there remained a genuine issue of material fact as to whether there was a causal link between the defendants' acts or omissions and Young's death, and the trial judge erred in finding that Dr. Hansen had withdrawn his previous opinions. Aetna, 669 So.2d at 70. Thus, we find that the court should have denied the motions for summary judgment.