Summary Judgment: Discovery

Satterlee v. Lumberman's Mutual [11/15/06] 2006 MTWCC 36 In a Rule 56(f) dispute, the burden is on the party seeking to conduct additional discovery to put forth sufficient facts to show that evidence exists which may preclude summary judgment. Environmental Contractors, LLC v. Moon, 1999 MT 178, ¶ 21, 295 Mont. 268, 983 P.2d 390.
Satterlee v. Lumberman's Mutual [11/15/06] 2006 MTWCC 36 Although Petitioners have explained how the discovery they seek may controvert Respondents’ economic figures, Petitioners have not explained how the sought-after discovery may preclude a grant of summary judgment in favor of Respondents in light of the fact that the Court’s constitutional analysis was not grounded on the specific economic analyses proffered by Respondents.
Satterlee v. Lumberman's Mutual [07/12/06] 2006 MTWCC 29 If the Court rules in Respondents’ favor on the cross-motion for summary judgment without allowing Petitioners the opportunity to demonstrate how the discovery they seek may have impacted the Court’s decision, the Court will inevitably be faced with addressing the same issue in another case involving a different petitioner in the same position as Petitioners in this case. In that event, the petitioner in the next case will simply seek the same discovery that Petitioners now seek. This procedural carousel only serves to negatively impact all the parties involved. It is in everyone’s interest to have a final resolution of this matter based on a complete record.

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.
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).