Christiansen v. Potlatch #1 Fin. Credit Union

• Decision Date: 16 November 2021
• Docket Number: Docket No. 48256
• Citation: 498 P.3d 713
• Parties: Eric CHRISTIANSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. POTLATCH #1 FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION, a Credit Union; Michael Moser, Defendants-Respondents.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

498 P.3d 713

Eric CHRISTIANSEN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.POTLATCH #1 FINANCIAL CREDIT UNION, a Credit Union; Michael Moser, Defendants-Respondents.

Docket No. 48256

Supreme Court of Idaho, Coeur d'Alene, August 2021 Term.

Opinion Filed: November 16, 2021

James, Vernon & Weeks, PA, Coeur d'Alene, for Appellant. Susan P. Weeks argued.

Creason, Moore, Dokken & Geidl, PLLC, Lewiston, for Respondent Potlatch #1, Federal Credit Union. Samuel T. Creason argued.

Aherin, Rice & Anegon, Lewiston, for Respondent Michael Moser. Anthony C. Anegon argued.

ZAHN, Justice.

This case concerns whether a trial court can appropriately grant summary judgment against a party when it failed to rule on that party's pending motion to compel discovery. Eric Christiansen filed a nine-count complaint against respondents, Michael Moser and Potlatch #1 Financial Credit Union ("P1FCU"), following a decision by the Lewiston Roundup Association ("LRA") to discontinue contracting with Christiansen to produce motorsport events at the LRA's facility. The complaint alleged that Moser, a P1FCU employee and LRA member, improperly accessed information from Christiansen's P1FCU account and shared it with the LRA so that it could recreate his business model and produce motorsport events without him. The district court granted summary judgment in the Respondents’ favor on each of Christiansen's claims. Christiansen appealed, arguing that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because it failed to rule on Christiansen's motion to compel discovery, failed to grant Christiansen more time to complete discovery, and failed to conclude that genuine issues of material fact precluded dismissal of four of Christiansen's claims. For the reasons discussed below, we vacate the district court's orders and judgment and remand for further proceedings.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Eric Christiansen owns and operates a sole proprietorship, E.C. Enterprises,¹ which is primarily in the business of orchestrating motorsport events. The LRA is a nonprofit organization that owns and operates the Lewiston Roundup Grounds (the "roundup grounds"). At all times relevant to this litigation, P1FCU was a federally chartered credit union with branches in the Lewiston area. Michael Moser worked for P1FCU as a mortgage services manager. Moser also served as an LRA board member from 2006 until October 2018. Christiansen has been a member and account holder at P1FCU for approximately forty years.

Beginning in 2006, Christiansen entered into numerous contracts with the LRA to use the roundup grounds for motorsport events, including demolition derbies. The number of events Christiansen held at the roundup grounds varied from year-to-year, but for each event Christiansen executed a separate contract with the LRA. While each event had its own contract, all event contracts for a given year were negotiated and executed at the same time near the beginning of the year. The precise terms of these contracts varied over time, but the broad contours remained the same—in exchange for use of the roundup grounds, the LRA would receive a set percentage of the event's gross ticket sale proceeds or a fixed sum, whichever was greater. To augment his income from ticket sales, Christiansen executed sponsorship agreements with local businesses. Christiansen claims that the revenue generated from his motorsport events at the roundup grounds accounted for 90 to 95 percent of his yearly income.

Following an event, Christiansen would meet with an LRA representative to reconcile ticket sale proceeds and divide them according to the contract. From 2014 to 2018, Christiansen met with Moser, who served as the LRA's special events chair, for the reconciliation process. Moser and Christiansen frequently met in person at Moser's office in a P1FCU branch and exchanged numerous emails and phone calls.

The LRA and Christiansen were involved in several disputes throughout their relationship. Of particular importance to both parties is a dispute in 2018 involving Christiansen's sale of "pit passes," which culminated in Christiansen conducting an "experiment" with different sets of wristbands. According to Christiansen, the experiment was necessitated due to trust issues between himself and the LRA.

Then, during a September 26, 2018, board meeting, the LRA passed two motions which precipitated this litigation. First, the LRA voted to abstain from executing any further motorsport event contracts with Christiansen. Second, the LRA voted to take over production of the demolition derby events at the roundup grounds. Moser was the LRA president at the time of these votes. The minutes from that meeting are silent as to whether Moser participated in deliberations on the motions. Moser claims that he did not vote on either motion, and as the president he only cast a vote if a tie occurred. Christiansen heard rumors of the LRA's decisions, but the LRA did not officially inform Christiansen of its decisions until December 15, 2018.

Sometime later, Christiansen claims that he received a phone call from former LRA member and P1FCU employee Dave Lumley. Christiansen alleges Lumley told him that "there's been people accessing your bank accounts," and that "they were looking to push [you] out and do their own events." Christiansen claims that "they" referred to the LRA; however, he admitted that Lumley did not specifically identify the LRA in this call. Lumley disputes that the call ever took place. Further, Christiansen's phone records do not indicate he received a call from Lumley's personal or work phone number during the period in which he alleges the call occurred.²

Believing that his account had been improperly accessed, Christiansen called a P1FCU branch manager on January 18, 2019, demanding an explanation. Initially, P1FCU was reluctant to supply Christiansen with a report of employees who accessed his account, but eventually acquiesced and provided Christiansen a document titled "Inquiry Tracking Report." The inquiry tracking report shows that between February 1, 2016, and April 26, 2018, Moser accessed Christiansen's account information eight times. Christiansen notes that the dates on which Moser viewed his account details coincided with days that Moser met with Christiansen and LRA board meetings. Moser, for his part, does not remember each time he accessed Christiansen's account, but claims it is likely he would have viewed Christiansen's account to get his contact information or verify how to make an LRA check payable to him.

On August 27, 2019, Christiansen filed this action in the Nez Perce County district court against Moser and P1FCU (collectively "Respondents"), raising claims related to the alleged disclosure of his account information and claiming damages of $2.5 million. Christiansen did not include the LRA as a party to this litigation.

B. Procedural History

Christiansen's complaint asserted nine counts against P1FCU: (1) negligent supervision, (2) tortious interference with contract, (3) breach of contract, (4) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (5) breach of fiduciary duty, (6) tortious invasion of privacy, (7) intentional infliction of emotional distress, (8) negligent infliction of emotional distress, and (9) a per se violation of Idaho Code section 26-1220.³ The only count brought against Moser was for tortious invasion of privacy. P1FCU answered on August 30 and Moser answered on October 2.

1. The discovery process

Christiansen served P1FCU with his first set of discovery requests on October 4, 2019. These discovery requests are not in the record on appeal. The record, however, does contain a letter from P1FCU's counsel to Christiansen's counsel following a "meet and confer" call pursuant to I.R.C.P. 37(a). The letter, dated December 6, 2019, indicated that P1FCU responded to Christiansen's discovery but lodged objections to several interrogatories and requests for production. P1FCU's counsel indicated that during the meet and confer Christiansen agreed to narrow the scope of one interrogatory, and P1FCU agreed to supplement its responses to several of Christiansen's requests for production, but the attorneys could not reach agreement on two interrogatories that P1FCU objected to as vague and overbroad. P1FCU's counsel indicated that Christiansen's counsel agreed to "set this matter for hearing on the morning of January 7, the date on which we anticipate having a summary judgment hearing." Finally, the letter discussed Christiansen's efforts to schedule depositions for several individuals, including Moser. P1FCU's counsel said that he advised Christiansen's counsel that he wished to spend December 24 through December 31 out of the office, and that Christiansen's counsel agreed to reschedule the depositions for January 16 or 17. Later that day, P1FCU's counsel emailed Christiansen's counsel, informing him that the district court was unavailable on January 7, but was available on January 16. P1FCU's counsel also requested Christiansen's counsel consider moving his depositions to January 22 and 24. The record is silent as to whether the depositions were rescheduled.

2. Christiansen's motion to compel and motion to continue and Respondents’ motions for summary judgment

On December 10, 2019, Christiansen moved to compel discovery from P1FCU pursuant to I.R.C.P. 37, seeking responses to the two interrogatories discussed in the December 6 letter and two requests for production to which P1FCU had objected. It does not appear from the record on appeal that Christiansen attached the discovery requests or P1FCU's responses to his motion or the declaration in support of the motion. Christiansen initially scheduled the hearing on his motion to compel for December 26, 2019, but later filed an amended notice of hearing for January 16, 2020.

Almost a week later, on December 16, 2019, Moser and P1FCU filed motions to dismiss and motions for summary judgment.⁴ In support of their...