Utah Court of Appeals
When can Utah courts exclude expert reports for untimely disclosure? R.O.A. General v. Dai Explained
Summary
The Dais filed a third-party complaint against their title insurer after a sign lease on their property was deemed valid. After years of inaction and missing the expert disclosure deadline, their expert report was struck and the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute. The trial court also granted summary judgment based on the Dais’ inability to prove damages without the expert report.
Analysis
In R.O.A. General v. Dai, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the automatic exclusion of expert reports under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 37(h), clarifying when courts must strike untimely expert disclosures and the limited circumstances that excuse such failures.
Background and Facts
The Dais purchased commercial property with a sign lease that became the subject of litigation. After the sign lease was ruled valid, they filed a third-party complaint against their title insurer, Stewart Title. Following bankruptcy proceedings, the Dais repurchased their cause of action but failed to meet the March 16, 2012 expert disclosure deadline. They provided their expert report on May 16, 2012, two months late, without seeking an extension or showing good cause for the delay.
Key Legal Issues
The primary issue was whether the trial court abused its discretion in striking the untimely expert report under Rule 37(h). The Dais argued that willfulness must be shown before imposing discovery sanctions, but the court distinguished between affirmative sanctions under Rule 37(e)(2) and the automatic exclusion mandated by Rule 37(h).
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court held that exclusion of untimely expert reports is automatic and mandatory unless the failure is harmless or good cause is shown. Unlike affirmative sanctions, no finding of willfulness is required. The court rejected the Dais’ arguments, noting they never sought an extension, displayed no urgency after repurchasing their claim, and would cause prejudice to Stewart Title by requiring additional discovery and trial delays.
Practice Implications
This decision reinforces that Utah courts strictly enforce expert disclosure deadlines. Practitioners must proactively seek extensions before deadlines expire and demonstrate either harmlessness or good cause to avoid automatic exclusion. The court’s analysis emphasizes that scheduling orders have significance and cannot be disregarded simply because trial has not been scheduled.
Case Details
Case Name
R.O.A. General v. Dai
Citation
2014 UT App 124
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20120896-CA
Date Decided
May 30, 2014
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
Under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 37(h), exclusion of untimely expert reports is automatic and mandatory unless the failure to disclose is harmless or the party shows good cause.
Standard of Review
Abuse of discretion for trial court’s decision to strike expert report and dismiss for failure to prosecute
Practice Tip
Always move for extension of expert disclosure deadlines before they expire, as automatic exclusion under Rule 37(h) requires showing good cause or harmlessness to avoid sanctions.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.