Summary Judgment is Premature when Discovery is Pending
Entry of summary judgment is premature when discovery has not been completed. Arguelles v. City of Orlando, 855 So. 2d 1202, 1203 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). “Parties to a lawsuit are entitled to discovery as provided in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, including the taking of depositions, and it is reversible error to enter summary judgment when discovery is in progress and the deposition of a party is pending.” Smith v. Smith, 734 So. 2d 1142, 1144 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999) (quotation omitted).
In many cases, the litigation will reach a point where the parties no longer dispute what happened, i.e., the facts, and the only dispute that remains is simply how the law should be applied to those facts. Such cases can be resolved by summary judgment, which is appropriate where “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.510(a).
However, “[u]nless the facts of a case have been developed sufficiently to enable the trial court to determine that no issues of fact exist, summary judgment must not be entered.” Vills. at Mango Key Homeowners Ass’n v. Hunter Dev., 699 So. 2d 337, 338 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997). “Where discovery is not complete, the facts are not sufficiently developed to enable the trial court to determine whether genuine issues of material facts exist.” Payne v. Cudjoe Gardens Prop. Owners Ass’n, 837 So. 2d 458, 461 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) “Thus, where discovery is still pending, the entry of Summary Judgment is premature.” Id.
Consequently, as a general matter, entry of summary judgment is premature when discovery has not been completed. See, also, e.g., Henderson v. Reyes, 702 So. 2d 616, 616 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (reversing the entry of summary judgment where depositions had not been completed and a request for the production of documents was outstanding); Collazo v. Hupert, 693 So. 2d 631, 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (holding that a trial court should not entertain a motion for summary judgment while discovery is still pending); Vills. at Mango Key, 699 So. 2d at 338 (“[S]ummary judgment should not be entered when good faith discovery is still pending.”); Singer v. Star, 510 So. 2d 637, 639 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987) (internal citations omitted) (“[S]ummary judgment is also premature where there has been insufficient time for discovery, or where a party through no fault of his own, has not yet completed discovery, or when objections to interrogatories and a motion to produce are pending.”).
For example, in Sica v. Sam Caliendo Design, 623 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), the plaintiff appealed an adverse summary judgment granted by the trial court. Prior to the summary judgment hearing, the defendant was scheduled for a deposition. Id. at 860. As an accommodation to the defendant’s counsel, the plaintiff’s attorney agreed to reset the date of the deposition. Id. A motion for summary judgment was scheduled prior to the date of the rescheduled deposition. Id. The defendant’s counsel would not agree to postpone the summary judgment hearing. Id. Over objection of the plaintiff’s counsel, the hearing on the motion for summary judgment was conducted and summary judgment was entered against the plaintiff. Id.
The Fourth District reversed the entry of summary judgment. Sica, 623 So. 2d at 860. The Court reasoned, “[r]egardless of whether counsel’s actions were unintentional, this court still cannot sanction such conduct which allowed the deposition to be avoided prior to the summary judgment hearing.” Id. “While it was argued that [the defendant’s] case was so strong that any error was essentially harmless,” the Court could not “agree because there is no way to determine what may or may not have been said during the course of the avoided deposition.” Id.
Additionally, in UFF DAA, Inc. v. Towne Realty, Inc., 666 So. 2d 199 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995), the plaintiff appealed an adverse summary judgment. As a part of its pretrial discovery, the plaintiff noticed two of the defendant’s corporate officers to attend depositions. Id. at 200. Both corporate officers failed to appear, and, as a result, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel discovery and a motion for sanctions. Id. At the time the trial court granted summary judgment in the defendant’s favor, the plaintiff’s motions were still pending. Id. On appeal, the Fifth District held that it was reversible error to enter summary judgment when relevant discovery was in progress and a deposition of a party was pending. Id.