292 P.3d 1276
Haw.2013Background
- Ralston sued his dentist Dr. Yim for alleged negligent orthodontic care and loss of lower front teeth.
- Dr. Yim moved for summary judgment, and the circuit court sua sponte continued the hearing under HRCP Rule 56(f).
- Ralston later submitted an unauthenticated Dr. Aronowitz report alleging substandard care; Dr. Yim argued the lack of an admissible expert affidavit warranted summary judgment.
- Ralston’s faxed affidavit from Aronowitz was struck as untimely and unauthenticated; the court granted summary judgment for Yim.
- ICA vacated the circuit court’s judgment, holding Yim failed to satisfy initial burden of production and that discovery timing affected the outcome; court reaffirmed that HRCP Rule 56(f) governs continuances and discovery.
- Court ultimately concluded that Yim did not satisfy the initial burden of production, so summary judgment was improper and affirmed the ICA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Yim satisfied his initial burden of production | Ralston argues Yim failed to prove no breach; discovery prevented proof | Yim contends no admissible evidence negating breach exists | No; Yim failed to meet initial burden of production |
| Whether the lack of admissible expert evidence shifts burden to Ralston | Ralston lacked time to obtain experts; no shift of burden | Yim argues lack of evidence supports summary judgment | No; cannot shift burden before non-movant’s burden shown |
| Whether HRCP Rule 56(f) continuance was properly used | Rule 56(f) should allow time to obtain experts | Record shows continuance already used; affidavits overdue | Rule 56(f) appropriate mechanism; ICA erred in relying on discovery adequacy for summary judgment timing |
| Whether the ICA properly distinguished Celotex and French in context | Non-movant time to gather evidence should preclude premature judgment | Movant may rely on absence of evidence when appropriate | Exception applies; here movant failed to demonstrate non-movant cannot prove case at trial |
| Whether costs award was proper | Dr. Yim prevailed on appeal to ICA; costs misassignment | Dr. Yim entitled to costs as prevailing party on summary judgment | Costs awarded incorrectly; reverse as to costs |
Key Cases Cited
- French v. Hawaii Pizza Hut, Inc., 105 Hawai#i 462 (Haw. 2004) (two-step summary judgment burden; non-movant must show no triable issue)
- Exotics Hawaii-Kona, Inc. v. DuPont De Nemours & Co., 116 Hawai#i 277 (Haw. 2007) (initial burden; pre-discovery timing; damages considerations)
- Eddins v. Morrison, 105 Hawai#i 376 (App. 2004) (hearsay affidavits improper; evidence issues on summary judgment)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (movant may show absence of evidence to support non-movant’s case)
- Thomas v. Kidani, 126 Hawai#i 126 (Haw. 2011) (case-dependent evaluation of proving ability to prevail at trial)