Must Utah trial courts rule on discovery motions before granting summary judgment? EMS, L.L.C. v. Shaw Explained

In EMS, L.L.C. v. Shaw, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether trial courts must expressly consider rule 56(f) discovery motions before granting summary judgment. The decision provides important guidance for practitioners seeking additional discovery when facing summary judgment motions.

Background and Facts

EMS held interests in oil leases that were the subject of federal litigation against the United States. Under a 1995 agreement, Shaw forgave nearly $800,000 in debt in exchange for oil leases and agreed to fund the federal litigation up to $30,000. When the federal litigation settled for $300,000 plus lease extensions, EMS claimed it did not receive its expected share under the 1995 agreement. Shaw and Del-Rio moved for summary judgment, and EMS requested additional discovery under rule 56(f), specifically seeking depositions of Shaw and the attorney who handled the federal litigation settlement.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the trial court erred by granting summary judgment without addressing EMS’s rule 56(f) motion for additional discovery. The court applied de novo review because the trial court failed to exercise its discretion by not ruling on the motion.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that trial courts must address pending rule 56(f) motions before granting summary judgment unless the motions are clearly meritless or dilatory. The court found EMS’s motion had merit because the requested discovery could produce evidence supporting its claim that Shaw entered into a funding agreement or failed to use best efforts. While EMS had not initiated discovery for sixteen months, the court found the motion was not dilatory given that pleadings were incomplete, defendants controlled relevant information, and EMS filed its motion promptly after receiving defendants’ affidavits.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes that rule 56(f) motions should be granted liberally unless they are dilatory or lack merit. Practitioners should file discovery motions promptly after receiving summary judgment motions and specifically explain how the requested discovery targets core issues that could defeat summary judgment. The court adopted the remedy of reversing and remanding for express consideration of the discovery motion, providing a clear path for appellate relief when trial courts ignore such motions.