Can Utah courts exclude expert testimony for missed disclosure deadlines? Spafford v. Granite Credit Union Explained

In Spafford v. Granite Credit Union, the Utah Court of Appeals examined whether a trial court properly excluded expert testimony and granted summary judgment when plaintiffs missed expert disclosure deadlines by several months.

Background and Facts

Iris Spafford was injured when she fell on a curb in Granite Credit Union’s parking lot. The Spaffords filed a negligence action, alleging design defects and dangerous conditions. Despite four extensions of their expert disclosure deadline, the Spaffords failed to meet the final May 15, 2009 deadline. They eventually served their expert disclosure in August 2009, nearly three months late, and sought a fifth extension in October 2009. The trial court denied the extension motion, struck the expert disclosure, and granted summary judgment for Granite.

Key Legal Issues

The case presented several critical issues: whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the extension motion under Rule 6(b)(2), whether striking the expert disclosure under Rule 37(f) was appropriate, and whether expert testimony was necessary to establish breach of duty and causation in a premises liability case involving curb design.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals affirmed on all issues. Regarding the extension motion, the court found no abuse of discretion where the Spaffords had retained their expert by December 2006 but failed to designate him until August 2009, despite claiming an informal agreement with opposing counsel that was never documented in writing. For the expert disclosure, the court noted that Rule 37(f) mandates exclusion of late-filed evidence unless the failure is harmless or good cause is shown. The Spaffords’ original disclosure lacked required information under Rule 26(a)(3)(B) and failed to address causation. Finally, the court determined that expert testimony was necessary because curb design and maintenance standards are beyond the common knowledge of lay persons.

Practice Implications

This case demonstrates the importance of strict compliance with expert disclosure deadlines. Courts will not excuse delays based on informal agreements unless properly documented. Practitioners should ensure expert reports contain all information required by Rule 26(a)(3)(B) and address all essential elements of the claim. The decision also confirms that expert testimony is typically required in premises liability cases involving technical standards like building codes or design specifications.