Motion for Continuance in Hawaii

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Continuance under HRCP 56(f) to Avoid Summary Judgment

“Rule 56(f) — like its federal counterpart, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) Rule 56(f) — provides a mechanism for litigants to seek a continuance or avoid summary judgment when they need to discover essential facts to justify their opposition.” (See Hawaii v. E.I (2007) 116 Haw. 277, 307; Hall v. State of Hawai'I (1986) 791 F.2d 759, 761 [stating that FRCP Rule 56(f) empowers the court to continue or deny a motion for summary judgment if the opposing party needs to discover essential facts to justify the opposition].)

“HRCP Rule 56(f) permits a court to order a continuance to allow a party opposing a motion for summary judgment to obtain affidavits, depositions or discovery, where the party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party's opposition[.]" (See Kaleikini v. Yoshioka (2012) 283 P.3d 60, 94.)

“A request for a continuance pursuant to HRCP Rule 56(f) must demonstrate how postponement of a ruling on the motion will enable [the moving party], by discovery or other means, to rebut the movant's showing of absence of a genuine issue of fact." (See id; Josue v. Isuzu Motors America, Inc. (1998) 87 Haw. 413, 538.)

“The purpose of Rule 56(f) is to provide an additional safeguard against an improvident or premature grant of summary judgment." (See Price v. Gen. Motors Corp. (1991) 931 F.2d 162, 164; Hawaii v. E.I (2007) 116 Haw. 277, 307-08.)

“[T]he rule should be applied with a spirit of liberality.” (See Hawaii v. E.I (2007) 116 Haw. 277, 308-09.)

“Although discovery need not be complete before a case is dismissed, summary judgment is proper only if the nonmovant has had adequate time for discovery.” (See id.)

“To this end, Rule 56(f) allows a party to request a delay in granting summary judgment if the party can make a good faith showing that postponement of the ruling would enable it to discover additional evidence which might rebut the movant's showing of the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. The party is required to show what specific facts further discovery might unveil.” (See id; McCabe v. Macaulay (2006) 450 F.Supp.2d 928, 933; Acoba v. General Tire, Inc. (1999) 92 Hawai'i 1, 11-12, 986 P.2d 288, 298-99 [an HRCP Rule 56(f) affidavit must provide valid reasons why a continuance is necessary and demonstrate specifically how postponement would enable rebuttal]; Josue v. Isuzu Motors Am., Inc. (1998) 87 Hawai'i 413, 416, 958 P.2d 535, 538.)

“In sum, the circuit court has the discretion to deny the motion for summary judgment, order a continuance for additional discovery or make such other order as is just.” (See Hawaii v. E.I (2007) 116 Haw. 277, 307-08; Jensen v. Redevelopment Agency of Sandy City (1993) 998 F.2d 1550, 1554; Josue v. Isuzu Motors America, Inc. (1998) 87 Haw. 413, 538.) [a [circuit] court's decision to deny a request for continuance pursuant to HRCP Rule 56(f) will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion].)

Procedural Steps Involved in Filing a Motion for Continuance

“All motions, except when made during a hearing or trial, shall be in writing, shall state the grounds therefor, shall set forth the relief or order sought, and if involving a question of law shall be accompanied by a memorandum in support of the motion. Every motion, except one entitled to be heard ex parte, shall be accompanied by a notice of hearing or of setting for hearing thereof. The motion may be stated in the notice of hearing. If a motion requires the consideration of facts not appearing of record, it shall be supported by affidavit. The motion shall be filed and served on all parties not less than 18 days before the date set for the hearing.” (See Haw. R. Cir. Ct. 7(a).)

“An opposing party may serve and file counter affidavits and a memorandum in opposition to the motion, which shall be served and filed not less than 8 days before the date set for the hearing, except as otherwise provided by the Hawai'i Rules of Civil Procedure or ordered by the Court. The movant may file and serve a reply not less than 3 days before the date set for the hearing. A reply must respond only to arguments raised in the opposition. Unless permitted by another rule or statute, no party may file or serve any papers other than those provided for in this rule. No party may file any papers less than 3 days before the date set for the hearing unless otherwise ordered by the court.” (See Haw. R. Cir. Ct. 7(b).)

“A party who does not oppose or who intends to support a motion, or who desires a continuance, shall immediately give written notification to the court and opposing counsel. Failure to appear at the hearing may be deemed a waiver of objections to the granting of the motion.” (See Haw. R. Cir. Ct. 7(c).)

“If a date has been assigned for trial of an action, a motion for continuance of the trial shall include on the first page of the notice of motion the trial date assigned and any previously assigned trial dates.” (See Haw. R. Cir. Ct. 7(d).)

“A motion for continuance of any assigned trial date, whether or not stipulated to by respective counsel, shall be granted only upon a showing of good cause, which shall include a showing that the client-party has consented to the continuance. Consent may be demonstrated by the client-party's signature on a motion for continuance or by the personal appearance in court of the client-party.” (See Haw. R. Cir. Ct. 7(e).)

“Unless otherwise ordered for good cause shown, all pretrial motions that request entry of judgment or dismissal of any claim shall be filed not later than 50 days prior to the assigned trial date.” (See Haw. R. Cir. Ct. 7(f).)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Continuance

“It is a well-established principle, in this jurisdiction and elsewhere, that the granting or denial of a continuance is a matter that is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and is not subject to reversal on appeal absent a showing of abuse.” (See Sanders v. Point After, Inc. (1981) 2 Haw. App. 65, 70; Yamashiro v. Costa (1921) 26 Haw. 54; Irwin v. Lyman (1926) 29 Haw. 434; In Re Adoption of Jane Doe (1957) 42 Haw. 250.)

“An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court has clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant." (See Anastasi v. Fid. Nat'l Title Ins. Co. (2014) 341 P.3d 1200, 1212; Save Sunset Beach Coal. v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu (2003) 102 Hawai‘i 465, 484, 78 P.3d 1, 20.)