Court Opinion

ID: 9734764
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:45:25.920008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:51.121326
License: Public Domain

Bronson, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent on the issue of whether summary judgment was inappropriate because it was granted prior to the completion of discovery. I believe that summary judgment was prematurely granted.
Allstate contends that discovery on the disputed issue was complete in this case. Further, Allstate notes that plaintiffs merely speculate that they might be able to obtain factual support for their assertion that plaintiff resided with his parents on April 6, 1977, if given more time. I agree with Allstate that mere conjecture does not meet the burden of the opposing party to come forward with evidentiary proof to establish that there exists a genuine issue of material fact. See Dionne v Pierson Contracting Co, 2 Mich App 134, 139; 138 NW2d 555, 557 (1965). However, I do not expect an opposing party to meet this burden until the time set for discovery has expired. The question, then, is whether the time for the completion of discovery had come.
By GCR 1963, 301.7, the discovery process is halted when the pretrial conference is either held or waived. This seemingly straightforward rule is made difficult to apply, however, due to Michigan Supreme Court Administrative Order 1978-2, which authorizes the judicial circuits to eliminate *453the mandatory pretrial conference except on motion of counsel showing the need for proceedings or by order of the trial court sua sponte. Local Court Rule 7.1 of the Sixth Judicial Circuit (Oakland County) provides:
"GCR 1963, 301.1 through 301.7 shall be applicable to civil cases only:
"(a) Upon granting of a motion timely made and showing need for proceedings under Rule 301, or
"(b) Upon order of the Judge of the court entered sua sponte.
"This rule shall not be construed to affect or impair the right of any party to obtain discovery within a reasonable time after the case is at issue under and in accord with GCR 1963, 302 through 313. No case shall be adjourned more than once for the reason that discovery has not been completed unless such an adjournment is ordered by a judge of the court.”
Under Local Court Rule 7.1, the time for discovery had expired only if it can be concluded that plaintiffs were unreasonable in completing their discovery efforts. The concept of reasonableness is subjective and relative so that only obviously unreasonable discovery efforts will be held to be caught by the rule.
In this case, the affidavit of Fleurette Podsiadlo states that defendant went to live with a friend named "Steve”. Plaintiffs indicate in their brief that they want to depose "Steve”. Steve’s testimony could result in sufficient factual support to create a genuine issue as to a material fact. Given that plaintiffs did not know of the existence of Steve until mid-March, 1980, when Allstate filed its motion for summary judgment, I do not find them unreasonable in failing to have concluded *454discovery by May 14, 1980, the date upon which the motion for summary judgment was granted.1
I agree with the majority that it would have been preferable had plaintiffs specifically raised the discovery period issue on the record before the circuit court. .1 am unable to say with any certainty, however, that this issue was not raised. The transcript, of the May 7, 1980, hearing on the motion for summary judgment consists of one page indicating that the matter had been argued in chambers. What was stated at this time I do not know.
In any case, I do not agree that the general rule that an issue is not preserved for appeal unless raised below should be so stringently applied in cases where no trial has taken place. I do not know in what circumstances the majority would find it "necessary to a proper determination of the case” to consider a claim not raised below. See, Prudential Ins Co v Cusick, 369 Mich 269, 290; 120 NW2d 1 (1963). However, since I believe discovery was prematurely cut off here by the decision to grant the motion for summary judgment and that Allstate would not be greatly inconvenienced by allowing discovery to proceed, resolution of this issue is necessary to properly protect the rights of the plaintiffs. In my opinion, where no trial has occurred, less extreme sanctions should be imposed on litigants for their failure to raise an issue below rather than refusing to consider the claim which entitles them to relief. For instance, they could be denied costs even if they prevailed in the appeal.
I would reverse and require the trial court to set a date in conjunction with the parties upon which all discovery must be completed.

 I also note that while plaintiffs became aware of Steve’s existence in mid-March, the record fails to show that at this time they had any notion concerning where he lived or how to get in touch with him.