court's decision did not constitute an abuse of discretion. The trial court was particularly troubled by the Estate's "form over substance" insistence that McKinney's designated evidence be excluded from consideration, (Summary Judgment Tr. 7) because the Estate sought to preclude the trial court from considering documents the Estate's attorney had drafted and filed with the trial court in prior litigation against McKinney. Moreover, the Estate was not prejudiced by the trial court's decision: McKinney's supplemental affidavit presented no new substantive evidence, the Estate had already addressed the previously designated evidence in its brief, and the Estate failed to renew its motion to strike upon McKinney's submission of the supplemental affidavit, See Logan, 728 N.E.2d at 860 (<HOLDING>). The trial court did not abuse its discretion
recognizing that while summary judgment is improper if the nonmovant is not afforded a sufficient opportunity for discovery it is the nonmovants responsibility to inform the district court of the need for discovery by filing an affidavit pursuant to rule 56f of the federal rules of civil procedure or filing a motion requesting additional discovery holding no prejudice occurred when supplemental affidavits of a substantive nature were submitted after the time for a nonmovants response had elapsed and the parties had ample opportunity for prior discovery holding that when the trial court proceeded to consider affidavits submitted with motion to reconsider summary judgment the affidavits were properly before the appellate court for purposes of reviewing the propriety of the trial courts grant of summary judgment holding that the trial court abused its discretion in determining that adequate time for discovery had passed because movant successfully resisted nonmovants attempts to obtain discovery holding movant may not raise new grounds for summary judgment in reply to nonmovants response