In a motor vehicle negligence action, the court addressed whether responding parties could file additional affidavit evidence as a sur-reply in response to the moving defendants’ reply evidence on a summary judgment motion.
The request required further amendments to a timetable that had already been revised multiple times through repeated case conferences.
Applying summary judgment burden principles for rear-end collisions and procedural fairness principles governing reply and sur-reply evidence, the court held the parties had already had a fair opportunity to put their best evidentiary record forward.
Emphasizing finality and proportionality, the court refused further evidentiary expansion and directed the matter to proceed on the existing schedule.
