Rule 1.911.Causes for continuance

Rule 1.911(1) sets the basic standard for granting a continuance: any cause not growing out of the movant's own fault or negligence, so long as it satisfies the court that substantial justice will be more nearly obtained by continuing the case. If every party agrees to the continuance and the court approves, it must be allowed.

When the reason for the continuance is a missing witness, Rule 1.911(2) demands more than a general assertion. The motion needs an affidavit from the party, the party's agent, or the attorney, and that affidavit has to cover specific ground: the absent witness's name and residence, or the diligence used to try to find them; the concrete efforts made to obtain the witness or the witness's testimony, along with facts showing a reasonable basis to expect the testimony can be secured by a specific date; and the particular facts, apart from legal conclusions, the affiant believes the witness would prove, along with the affiant's belief those facts are true and that no other witness could fully prove them.

Rule 1.911(3) gives the opposing side a way to head off that continuance entirely. If the court finds the motion sufficient, the adverse party can avoid the continuance by admitting that the absent witness, if present, would testify to the facts stated in the affidavit — treating that admission as the witness's evidence rather than delaying the trial to get the witness there in person.