Can trial courts exclude untimely designated expert witnesses in negligence cases? Brussow v. Webster Explained

In Brussow v. Webster, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when trial courts may exclude untimely designated witnesses in personal injury litigation. The case demonstrates the serious consequences of failing to comply with discovery deadlines.

Heather Brussow sued William Webster for injuries allegedly sustained in a 2003 automobile accident. Despite multiple scheduling orders setting expert witness designation deadlines, Brussow repeatedly failed to designate her witnesses on time. Webster consistently designated his witnesses by the required dates, while Brussow designated hers only after Webster had already moved for summary judgment based on her failure to designate witnesses.

The trial court found that Brussow’s untimely disclosure impaired Webster’s ability to defend against her claims because he did not have the opportunity to depose her expert witnesses, and fact witnesses’ memories could have faded due to the protracted litigation. The court also noted that Brussow provided no clear justification for her late disclosure.

Under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 37(f), courts have discretion to exclude late-filed evidence or employ alternative sanctions. The rule mandates exclusion unless the failure to disclose is harmless or the party shows good cause. Here, the court found Webster would be prejudiced by allowing the untimely witnesses, and Brussow failed to demonstrate good cause.

The Court of Appeals applied an abuse of discretion standard and affirmed the trial court’s exclusion of the witnesses. The court emphasized that formal disclosure of experts is not pointless, as it allows parties to properly prepare for trial, including attempting to disqualify expert testimony and retaining rebuttal experts.

This case serves as a critical reminder that Utah courts will enforce discovery deadlines strictly, and late witness designations can doom an otherwise viable case.