Pleading, Discovery, and Pretrial Motion Practice (excluding Motions in Limine)
Extend or Enlarge Time, Motion to
Except as indicated, all indented material is copied directly from the court’s opinion.
Decisions of the Tennessee Supreme Court
Williams v. Baptist Memorial Hosp., 193 S.W.3d 545, 551 (Tenn. 2006).
Decisions of the Tennessee Court of Appeals
Joshlin v. Halford, No.W2020-01643-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2023).
In sum, “the decision to grant or deny an enlargement of time due to excusable neglect is within the discretion of the trial court; therefore, our review of the trial court’s decision is subject to the very deferential abuse of discretion standard, which does not permit this court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” Skipper v. State, No. M2009-00022-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 2365580, at *8 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 31, 2009) (citing Maness, 2009 WL 837707, at *3); see also Ambrose v. Batsuk, No. M2006-01131-COA-R3-CV, 2008 WL 1901207, at *6 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 30, 2008) (“Under Rule 6.02, the decision to extend or not extend the time within which a party is allowed to act always remains within the sound discretion of the trial court.”).
Farm Credit Leasing Services Corp. v. Daniels, No. W2020-01576-COA-R3-CV, p. 7 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2022).
A trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion under Rule 6.02 is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. This standard does not permit an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court. Milan Supply Chain Sols., Inc. v. Navistar, Inc., 627 S.W.3d 125 (Tenn. 2021) (citations omitted). Instead, “[a]n abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court ‘applies an incorrect legal standard, or reaches a decision which is against logic or reasoning that causes an injustice to the party complaining.’” Id. (citing Borne v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., 532 S.W.3d 274, 294 (Tenn. 2017)).
Cunningham v. Fresenius Medical Care Inc., No. M2021-01087-COA-R3-CV, p. 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 22, 2022).
We first take up the second issue Plaintiff raises and review the trial court’s denial of the motion to enlarge. A trial court is “afforded broad judicial discretion in procedural matters in order to expedite litigation and to preserve fundamental rights of the parties.” Douglas, 876 S.W.2d at 97. Thus, we review a trial court’s decision to grant or deny an enlargement of time pursuant to Rule 6.02 for an abuse of discretion. Dubis v. Loyd, 540 S.W.3d 4, 12 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2016) (citing Williams, 193 S.W.3d at 551). An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court “‘applie[s] an incorrect legal standard, or reache[s] a decision which is against logic or reasoning that cause[s] an injustice to the party complaining.’” Eldridge v. Eldridge, 42 S.W.3d 82, 85 (Tenn. 2001) (quoting State v. Shirley, 6 S.W.3d 243, 247 (Tenn. 1999)). Under this standard, we do not substitute our judgment for that of the trial court and will not reverse a trial court’s discretionary decision “‘so long as reasonable minds can disagree as to propriety of the decision made.’” Id. (quoting State v. Scott, 33 S.W.3d 746, 752 (Tenn. 2000)).
Washington v. Tony Parker as Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Corrections, No. M2021-00583-COA-R3-CV, p. 4-5 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 9, 2022).
We review a trial court’s decision whether to grant or deny a motion for extension of time under an abuse of discretion standard. Williams v. Baptist Mem’l Hosp., 193 S.W.3d 545, 551 (Tenn. 2006) (“[W]hether to grant an enlargement of time is left to the discretion of the trial court.”). “A trial court abuses its discretion only when it applies an incorrect legal standard, or reaches a decision which is against logic or reasoning that causes an injustice to the party complaining. The abuse of discretion standard does not permit the appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court.” Borne v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc., 532 S.W.3d 274, 294 (Tenn. 2017) (internal quotation marks, brackets, and citations omitted).
