Can a trial court exclude witnesses without finding willfulness? Moa v. Edwards Explained

In Moa v. Edwards, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when trial courts may exclude witness testimony for late designation and the requirements for preserving such arguments on appeal.

Plaintiff Seini Moa disclosed witnesses after discovery deadlines had passed and argued the trial court erred in excluding their testimony without finding that her late designation was willful. The court of appeals disagreed, holding that Moa failed to preserve the issue for appeal because she never argued to the trial court that it was required to make a willfulness determination.

The court emphasized that under established Utah precedent, a party must present the trial court with an opportunity to correct alleged errors. Since Moa did not specifically argue the willfulness issue at the trial level, she waived this argument on appeal. The court cited 438 Main St. v. Easy Heat, Inc. for the principle that three requirements must be met for a trial court to correct an error: (1) the issue must be raised timely, (2) the issue must be specifically raised, and (3) the challenging party must introduce supporting evidence or legal authority.

Additionally, the court found that even if Moa had preserved her willfulness argument, the evidence clearly supported a willfulness finding. Moa waited until August 2009, just three months before trial, to designate witnesses despite having numerous prior opportunities. The court noted that willfulness has been interpreted to mean “any intentional failure as distinguished from involuntary noncompliance,” and no wrongful intent need be shown.

The decision reinforces that Utah courts will strictly enforce discovery deadlines and that parties cannot raise new legal theories for the first time on appeal. Practitioners must ensure they fully develop their arguments at the trial court level to preserve them for appellate review.