AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The parties, after entering into a marital settlement agreement (MSA) that resolved all issues except custody and time-sharing of their two children, agreed to appoint Dr. Jan Griffin as a Rule 11-706 expert to make custody and time-sharing recommendations. Dr. Griffin recommended that the Father have primary physical custody, which led to a motion by the Father to adopt these recommendations. The Mother objected to Dr. Griffin's report and recommendations, leading to a full evidentiary hearing scheduled to address these objections (paras 2-3).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Mother: Argued that the district court erred in denying her request for a continuance to depose Dr. Griffin and prepare for the evidentiary hearing. She also objected to Dr. Griffin's expert report and recommendations regarding custody and time-sharing (paras 3, 7).
• Father: Responded that it was unreasonable for the Mother to subpoena Dr. Griffin’s files and request her deposition without being prepared to compensate Dr. Griffin at the time of the subpoena. He also noted that the Mother had not objected until she was dissatisfied with the recommendations in Dr. Griffin’s final report (para 4).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Mother's request for a continuance to depose Dr. Griffin and prepare for the evidentiary hearing (para 7).

Disposition

• The district court's decision to grant primary physical custody of the children to the Father, based on the recommendations of Dr. Jan Griffin, was affirmed (para 11).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge Timothy L. Garcia, with Chief Judge Roderick T. Kennedy and Judge Jonathan B. Sutin concurring, held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Mother's request for a continuance. The Court reasoned that the Mother had ample time between the first and second evidentiary hearings to depose Dr. Griffin but elected not to do so. The Court also considered factors such as the length of the requested delay, the likelihood that a delay would accomplish the movant’s objectives, and the degree of inconvenience to the parties and the court, concluding that the Mother failed to demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion. The Court noted that the Mother did not suffer any prejudice as a result of the denial of her motion for a continuance, as she had an additional six weeks after the July hearing was continued to the late August hearing, which was more than the three weeks she initially requested (paras 7-10).