Indiana Trial Rule for Summary Judgment Filings Strictly Applied
In Miller v. Yedlowski, 916 N.E.2d 246 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), the defendant in Miller brought an interlocutory appeal following the denial of his motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals held that because the nonmoving party (plaintiff) filed their second motion for enlargement of time six days after the deadline set by the trial court, the trial court’s order granting their second motion for enlargement of time was a nullity, and the trial court was precluded from considering plaintiff’s response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Consequently, the Court of Appeals remanded the case with instructions for the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of defendant because there was no evidence to oppose defendant’s motion.
Most recently, in Booher v. Sheeram, LLC, No. 20A03-1005-CT-338, (Ind. Ct. App. 2010), after the motion for summary judgment was originally filed, the responding attorney twice timely filed, and was granted, requests for extension of time. At that point, the responding attorney reached an agreement for an additional extension of time with the opposing attorney, but did not file any formal extension with the trial court. The responding attorney filed their designation of material facts in opposition along with an expert affidavit within informal extension time that was allotted, but the trial court granted the opposing attorney’s motion to strike the filings (even after the opposing attorney admitted to trial court he had agreed to the extension) as untimely having been filed outside of the thirty day window provided under Indiana Trial Rule 56. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s ruling concluding “[o]ur proverbial hands are tied . . . inasmuch as our Supreme Court has made it clear that the trial court simply had no discretion to accept the untimely filed documents, regardless of the circumstances.” The fact that the opposing attorney had agreed to the extension informally and the opposing attorney had health issues could never be justification as courts are forced to strictly apply the rule.
