of this case, an ex parte telephone call to the motion justice a day or so before the scheduled hearing date was an inappropriate method for requesting that the hearing be rescheduled. As defendant points out, Rule 7(b)(1) of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure requires that "[a]n application to the court for an order shall be by motion which, unless made during a hearing or trial or during the course of a deposition, shall be made in writing ." Although we can envision emergency or other extreme circumstances in which such an oral request might be considered — for example, when it is extremely impractical, if not altogether impossible, to submit a written motion — no such circumstances existed here. Compare Christensen-Towne v. Dorey, 802 A.2d 1010, 1012-13 (Me.2002) (<HOLDING>), with Teitelbaum v. Reliable Welding Co., 106
holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance to allow defendant to present mitigating evidence in the form of letters and affidavits from family members when they were not requested until the day before the hearing holding that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to grant leave to the moving party to amend their complaint before final summary judgment was entered holding that a telephone request to the court for a continuance the day before the trial was to start was a nullity holding that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a continuance requested by telephone when the party requesting same was served with notice of the proceeding less than one hour before the hearing holding that trial court was required to give full effect to supreme courts judgment and that by failing to do so the trial court abused its discretion