Summary Judgment: Affidavits

Searer v. Montana State Fund [02/03/05] 2005 MTWCC 7 Where the brief opposing summary judgment requests that a ruling on the motion be deferred until the opposing party has taken a critical deposition and such deposition can be taken within the time allowed for depositions, and the information set out in the opposing brief indicates possible grounds for allowing the deposition but such information is not verified by affidavit, the Court will provide the opposing party with an opportunity to file an affidavit with the information required by ARM 24.5.329(8).
Searer v. Montana State Fund [02/03/05] 2005 MTWCC 7 For good cause, ruling on motion for summary judgment will be deferred until relevant discovery is completed, including the taking of depositions. ARM 24.5.329(8). Good cause must be shown through a supporting affidavit demonstrating that the facts necessary to oppose the motion for summary judgment cannot be properly presented through affidavits.
Re: Kurth, Harold G. [12/23/03] 2003 MTWCC 71 A motion for summary judgment which does not cite to affidavits, depositions, written discovery responses, or other admissible evidence and which is not supported by affidavits, depositions, written discovery responses, or other admissible evidence must be denied summarily.
UEF v. SMF/Ed Gray [10/20/00] 2000MTWCC 66 Motion for summary judgment denied where not supported by any discovery, affidavits or other admissible evidence and not in form required by ARM 24.5.329. Belated submission of affidavits and exhibits not considered by the Court.
Smith v. Liberty Mutual Fire Ins. Co. [10/31/02] 2002 MTWCC 54 Even though the opposing party does not support its medical contentions with affidavits or other sworn evidence raising a material issue of fact, where summary judgment motion raises medical issues and medical testimony which might raise an issue of fact is scheduled to take place only days after a motion for summary judgment is submitted for decision, the Court will defer ruling on motion for summary judgment and consider the medical testimony in determining whether a genuine issue of fact is raised. See ARM 24.5.329(8). This approach is in recognition of the expedited pretrial schedule in workers' compensation proceedings and the difficulty in scheduling doctors' testimony.
Kemp v. Montana Contractor Compensation Fund [6/4/98] 1998 MTWCC 45 Motion for summary judgment denied for failure to comply with ARM 24.5.329(3) regarding presentation of alleged undisputed facts.
Pittsley v. State Fund [6/4/98] 1998 MTWCC 44 Motion for summary judgment denied for failure to comply with ARM 24.5.329(3) regarding presentation of alleged undisputed facts. The requirements to set forth facts serially and with reference to specific evidence reduces the time necessary to resolve a motion for summary judgment and avoids the possibility that the court would miss essential facts.
Stormont v. National Union Fire of Pittsburgh [1/3/96]1996 MTWCC 1 While lack of supporting affidavits and discovery may not always be fatal to a motion for summary judgment (for example, where the briefs reveal agreement to facts necessary to resolve the motion), summary judgment will be denied where the moving party does not comply with rules requiring authenticated evidence or sworn discovery to support the motion.
DeGregory v. State Compensation Ins. Fund [07/03/95] 1995 MTWCC 55 Failure to verify factual assertions made in opposition to motion for summary judgment with affidavits, or back with discovery or other verified evidence, may be fatal to opposition. Note: this case was decided prior to the Court’s adoption of a rule on Summary Judgment Motions (see ARM 24.5.329.)