Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civil Litigation Discovery Continuance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Judge resets slip-and-fall summary-judgment hearing to May 12 to allow further discovery and expert work
Summary
The court granted a motion to continue in a slip-and-fall case, ordering additional discovery and resetting the defendant’s summary-judgment hearing for May 12; judge referenced Rule 56.06 and set an April 28 supplementation deadline.
The presiding judge reset a defendant’s summary-judgment hearing in a slip-and-fall case to May 12 to allow the parties additional discovery, including depositions and potential expert work, after plaintiff counsel said new evidence and potential code-violation issues had emerged.
Plaintiff’s counsel (identified in court as Mr. Jeff Hendrickson) said depositions and follow-up investigation had revealed possible code violations related to the stair platform and asserted inadequate lighting had been alleged in the complaint. Defense counsel Pat Hoag opposed a continuance, saying core depositions had been available earlier and that affidavits could address material facts. The judge noted Rule 56.06 and the court’s authority to permit supplementation, saying in part, "The court may permit affidavits to be supplemented or opposed by deposition, answers to interrogatories, or further affidavits."
After hearing argument, the judge reset the summary-judgment hearing for May 12 and told the plaintiff to supplement its response at least 15 days before the hearing. The judge indicated April 28 as a practical deadline so opposing counsel would have two weeks to review any new materials. The judge emphasized the importance of allowing both sides to develop their case before a potentially dispositive ruling under Rule 56.
Counsel described the factual issues prompting the request: the plaintiff alleged inadequate lighting and that the platform where she fell was built at a 45-degree angle; following a deposition, the plaintiff’s team consulted the Dixon County Codes Department (represented in the transcript by a Mr. Darnell) and said they might retain an expert and possibly amend the complaint to add a negligence-per-se claim if code violations are shown. Defense counsel maintained no code violation had been pled and said the lighting issue was central to its summary-judgment argument.
The court’s order resets the dispositive hearing and sets a supplementation schedule; no final ruling on the merits was made at the docket call.
