Can Utah courts compel discovery based on informal requests? Rahofy v. Steadman Explained

In Rahofy v. Steadman, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether trial courts can grant motions to compel based on informal discovery requests that bypass the formal procedures required under the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.

Background and Facts

Following an automobile accident, defendants sought plaintiff’s complete medical and employment records through informal letters requesting she sign general releases. These letters requested access to records dating back twenty years, including employment records “back to when she was selling . . . Girl Scout cookies when she was nine-years old.” When plaintiff refused to sign the authorizations, defendants filed a motion to compel. The district court granted the motion, ordering plaintiff to provide extensive medical and employment records or sign releases for documents not in her possession.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether defendants could properly seek a motion to compel based on informal letter requests rather than formal discovery requests under Rule 34 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. The court also considered whether procedural requirements could be circumvented when documents are located outside Utah.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that defendants failed to follow proper discovery procedures. The court emphasized that Rule 34 requires formal document requests that: (1) are properly served, (2) describe items with reasonable particularity, and (3) seek documents in the responding party’s possession, custody, or control. Defendants’ informal letters satisfied none of these requirements. The court noted that out-of-state records can be obtained through proper subpoena procedures in other jurisdictions, rejecting defendants’ argument that authorizations were the only available method.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that informal cooperation in discovery, while encouraged, cannot substitute for formal procedural compliance when a party objects. Practitioners must use proper discovery tools under Rules 33 and 34, including specific descriptions of requested documents and certification requirements under Rule 26(g). For out-of-state records, attorneys should utilize interstate subpoena procedures rather than seeking to compel authorizations through informal requests.