Appellant Brief - Turtle Talk

Unlike the parties to the Tribal Court Action, the Tribal Court effectively
had no opportunity to develop evidence as a party. The Tribal Appeals Court
issued its decision on February 2, 2006, JA0116-17, and on March 27, 2006, the
Tribal Court filed a Motion to Dismiss, see Def. Red Lake Nation Tribal Court’s
Mot. to Dismiss with Prejudice or Alternative Mot. to Limit Evidence to be
Presented to the Fed. Ct. JA0006. On April 7, 2006, the Nords filed their Motion
for Summary Judgment, see Pl.’s Mot. for Summ. J. Against Defs. JA0007. This
time line shows that the Tribal Court had no real opportunity to gather the evidence
necessary to show that summary judgment is not proper. Further, it would be
unreasonable to expect the Tribal Court to gather evidence while its motion to
dismiss was still pending.
The rules anticipate the circumstances in which a party will need additional
time for discovery to prevent injustice. The circumstances of this case fit squarely
into the purpose of the rule. The District Court should have denied without
prejudice, or delayed consideration of, the Nords’ Motion for Summary Judgment
to allow the Tribal Court discovery.
41