Rick Ralston, Respondent/plaintiff-Appellant v. Errol Y.w. Yim, D.d.s., Petitioner/defendant-Appellee

Summary

The Hawai'i Supreme Court affirmed the Intermediate Court of Appeals' vacatur of summary judgment for a dentist accused of negligent orthodontic care, holding that the defendant-movant failed his initial burden of production because he pointed only to the plaintiff's lack of expert evidence before the discovery deadline rather than demonstrating that the plaintiff could not carry his burden of proof at trial. The court reiterated that a movant may meet its initial burden either by producing admissible evidence negating an element of the claim or by showing the nonmovant will be unable to offer proof at trial, and that merely noting an absence of record proof is insufficient while discovery remains open. It also corrected the ICA, announcing that 'adequate time' for discovery is not a substantive summary-judgment requirement and that HRCP Rule 56(f) is the proper procedure for obtaining additional time to respond to a motion filed before the discovery deadline. No separate opinions were filed.