Background
Wendy Anderson sued Truman Medical Center, Inc. for damages. Under the circuit court’s initial scheduling order, discovery closed on September 2, 2024, and dispositive motions were due October 8, 2024. Truman timely moved for summary judgment on October 8. Anderson sought a continuance of the January 2025 trial and, alternatively, a 14-day extension to respond to the summary-judgment motion. The court continued the trial but did not extend Anderson’s response deadline.
After a case-management conference, the court issued a new scheduling order setting a June 2025 discovery deadline, a September 2025 dispositive-motion deadline, and a March 2026 trial. Anderson conducted additional discovery but never responded to Truman’s pending motion. In August 2025, the circuit court deemed Truman’s properly supported facts admitted under Missouri Rule 74.04(c)(2), granted summary judgment on all claims, and denied Anderson’s motion to set aside the judgment.
The Court’s Holding
The Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that the new scheduling order did not void Truman’s previously filed summary-judgment motion or relieve Anderson of her obligation to respond. The motion complied with both scheduling orders because it had been filed before each order’s dispositive-motion deadline, and the new order said nothing about nullifying pending motions or extending Anderson’s response time.
The court also explained that ongoing discovery does not automatically invalidate a summary-judgment motion because Rule 74.04(b) permits a defending party to move for summary judgment at any time. Anderson could have sought an enlargement of time under Rule 44.01(b) or properly requested discovery-related relief under Rule 74.04(f), but she obtained no order extending her deadline and never submitted a response or the affidavits and specific showing required for Rule 74.04(f) relief. Because her sole appellate argument challenged the court’s authority to consider the pending motion, the court did not address the substantive basis for summary judgment or decide how the circuit court should have resolved her extension requests.
Key Takeaways
- A revised scheduling order does not automatically nullify dispositive motions already pending unless the order expressly provides otherwise.
- A request for more time does not suspend the Rule 74.04(c)(2) response obligation without a court order granting an extension.
- A party seeking additional discovery to oppose summary judgment must satisfy Rule 74.04(f) with a response, supporting affidavit, and a specific explanation of the evidence sought and its materiality.
Why It Matters
The decision warns litigants not to treat a continued trial, reopened discovery, or a new dispositive-motion deadline as implicitly resetting an existing summary-judgment response deadline. Unless the court expressly grants relief, a pending motion remains live and unanswered factual statements may be deemed admitted.
Counsel needing more time must obtain a clear ruling and comply with the procedural requirements for an extension or discovery-based continuance. Assumptions about what a new scheduling order accomplished will not preserve opposition to summary judgment.