Motion for Continuance in Idaho

Understanding the Purpose and Significance of a Motion for Continuance

“I.R.C.P. 56(f) permits a party to move for a continuance to secure affidavits, take depositions, or conduct additional discovery.” (See Franklin Bldg. Supply Co. v. Hymas (2014) 157 Idaho 632, 638.)

“The rule clearly contemplates that such a motion must be supported with an affidavit stating the reasons why the continuance is necessary.” (See id; Golay v. Loomis (1990) 118 Idaho 387, 391, 797 P.2d 95, 99 [holding that a district court did not err when it failed to grant a continuance to a party who presented neither a motion for a continuance nor an affidavit necessary to support such a motion].)

Motion for Continuance under Rule 56(f)

“Rule 56(f) of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure permits a trial court to continue the hearing on a motion for summary judgment if it appear[s] from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that the party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party's opposition." (See Fagen, Inc. v. Lava Beds Wind Park, LLC (2016) 159 Idaho 628, 632.)

"The rule clearly contemplates that such a motion must be supported with an affidavit stating the reasons why the continuance is necessary." (See id; Franklin Bldg. Supply Co. v. Hymas (2014)157 Idaho 632, 638, 339 P.3d 357, 363.)

“The party seeking a continuance has the burden of setting out what further discovery would reveal that is essential to justify their opposition, making clear what information is sought and how it would preclude summary judgment." (See Fagen, Inc. v. Lava Beds Wind Park, LLC (2016) 159 Idaho 628, 632; Jenkins v. Boise Cascade Corp. (2005)141 Idaho 233, 239, 108 P.3d 380, 386.)

“In ruling on a motion for a continuance under Rule 56(f), the trial court can consider the moving party's previous lack of diligence in pursuing discovery." (Fagen, Inc. v. Lava Beds Wind Park, LLC (2016) 159 Idaho 628, 632; Boise Mode, LLC v. Donahoe Pace & Partners Ltd. (2013)154 Idaho 99, 106, 294 P.3d 1111, 1118.)

Discretion of the Court in Deciding a Motion for Continuance

“A motion for a continuance in a civil action is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court.” (See Beal v. Griffin (1993) 123 Idaho 445, 451; Krepcik v. Tippett (1985) 109 Idaho 696, 699, 710 P.2d 606, 609.)

“Ordinarily, an appellate court will not interfere with the trial court's ruling.” (See id; Robinson v. United States (1983) 718 F.2d 336.)

“The exercise of discretion will not be disturbed on appeal unless it was so arbitrary that it deprived a litigant of a fundamentally fair trial.” (See Beal v. Griffin (1993) 123 Idaho 445, 451.)

“Our Supreme Court has set forth certain criteria by which the trial court's decision may be judged.” (See id.)

“If the motion for a continuance is made in good faith and because a material witness cannot attend, and shows that reasonable diligence has been exercised to obtain the presence of the witness, shows substantially to what the witness would testify and that such testimony is material, and shows a sufficient reason for the absence of the witness by the affidavit of an affiant in position to know the facts, then it is an abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse to grant a continuance.” (See id; Pauley v. Salmon River Lumber Co. (1953) 74 Idaho 483, 490, 264 P.2d 466, 470; see also Werry v. Phillips Petroleum Co. (1975) 97 Idaho 130, 540 P.2d 792; Dept. of Labor and Industrial Services v. East Idaho Mills (1986) 111 Idaho 137, 721 P.2d 736.)

However, “a motion denying a continuance under Rule 56(f) will be upheld if the court recognized it had the discretion to deny the motion, articulated the reasons for so doing and exercised reason in making the decision." (See Jenkins v. Boise Cascade Corp. (2005) 141 Idaho 233; Fagen, Inc. v. Lava Beds Wind Park, LLC (2016) 159 Idaho 628, 633.)

"There are no mechanical tests for deciding when a denial of a continuance is so arbitrary as to violate due process." (See Idaho Dep't of Health & Welfare v. Doe (In re Doe) (2020) 480 P.3d 143, 147.)

“Rather, the answer must be found in the circumstances present in every case, particularly in the reasons presented to the trial judge at the time the request is denied.” (See id.)

Legal Precedents and Case Law on a Motion for Continuance

It is well settled that “under the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure, the district court may grant a continuance to allow additional time for a party resisting summary judgment to obtain affidavits in opposition to the motion: should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that the party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party's opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.” (See I.R.C.P. 56(f); Boise Mode, LLC v. Donahoe Pace & Partners Ltd. (2013) 154 Idaho 99, 104.)

However, this Court has explained that it is also well settled that “when seeking a continuance under Rule 56(f), the moving party must do so in good faith by affirmatively demonstrating why he cannot respond to a movant's affidavits ... and how postponement of a ruling on the motion will enable him, by discovery or other means, to rebut the movant's showing of the absence of a genuine issue of fact. The Court also explained that the movant has the burden of setting out what further discovery would reveal that is essential to justify their opposition, making clear what information is sought and how it would preclude summary judgment." (See id; Jenkins v. Boise Cascade Corp. (2005) 141 Idaho 233, 239, 108 P.3d 380, 386; Allen v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (1996) 81 F.3d 793, 797.)