Miller v. Goetz, 327 P.3d 483

In 1991 Miller was sentenced to two life terms for deliberate homicide with no parole eligibility for 24 years.
Goetz represented Miller; Miller sought to modify parole eligibility but failed in 2006 (State v. Miller, 2006 MT 86N).
Miller later filed a civil suit against Goetz, Baris, Stubbs, alleging breach-related claims; Begley assisted Miller for discovery.
District Court granted summary judgment to Goetz; this Court affirmed in Miller v. Goetz, 2009 MT 160N.
In 2010 Miller filed suit against Defendants alleging deceit and related claims; defendants moved for summary judgment in 2013; Miller’s responses were pending.
The District Court granted summary judgment on December 2, 2013; Miller appealed claiming abuse of discretion on hearings and discovery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the district court abuse its discretion denying a summary judgment hearing?	Miller argues right to hearing exists regardless of response.	Right to hearing triggered only after response; Miller failed to respond.	No abuse; hearing not triggered without a response brief and merits were properly considered.
Did the district court abuse its discretion denying discovery-based delay of summary judgment?	Discovery could preclude summary judgment; scheduling order allowed more time.	No preclusion shown; speculation of a 'smoking gun' not enough.	No abuse; Miller failed to show discoverable material that would preclude summary judgment.

SVKV, L.L.C. v. Harding, 2006 MT 297 (Mont. 2006) (right to hearing waived by failure to file response; Rule 56 governs)
Rosenthal v. Co. of Madison, 2007 MT 277 (Mont. 2007) (abuses of Rule 56(f) require showing potential discovery material)
Chapman v. Maxwell, 2014 MT 35 (Mont. 2014) (summary judgment standards align with due process considerations)
Miller v. Begley, 2011 MT 230 (Mont. 2011) (preclusion of discovery issues in related actions)
State v. Miller, 2006 MT 86N (Mont. 2006) (parole eligibility and post-conviction considerations)