Eberhardt v. Providence Health and Service

A “trial court d[oes] not abuse its discretion by granting summary judgment without giving plaintiff additional time to submit” a response to pleadings when “[t]he court had already granted plaintiff additional time to file [the] response and made it clear to plaintiff that it would not allow any additional postponements.”

Petitioner appealed from a grant of summary judgment. Petitioner assigned error to the trial court’s decision to disregard a letter from a medical expert because it was unsworn. On appeal, Petitioner argued that under ORCP 12 B, the trial court should have disregarded the letter’s unsworn status because it was a “minor technical defect.” In response, Respondent argued that Petitioner’s argument on appeal was not preserved. A “trial court d[oes] not abuse its discretion by granting summary judgment without giving plaintiff additional time to submit” a response to pleadings when “[t]he court had already granted plaintiff additional time to file [the] response and made it clear to plaintiff that it would not allow any additional postponements.” The Court held that Petitioner’s pro se status did not require additional leeway because the trial court had already granted Petitioner an additional month to respond to the pleadings and Petitioner provided no justification for her failure to meet the deadline. Affirmed.