Can courts automatically exclude expert witnesses exposed to confidential information? Coroles v. State Explained

In Coroles v. State, 2015 UT 48, the Utah Supreme Court addressed whether district courts may automatically exclude expert witnesses who have been exposed to confidential information from medical malpractice prelitigation proceedings.

Background and Facts
Michelle Coroles sued medical providers after her husband died from pneumonia, alleging they misdiagnosed him with the flu. As required by the Utah Health Care Malpractice Act, she first presented her claims to a prelitigation panel. During litigation, her attorney’s introductory letters to expert witnesses referenced alleged opinions from the confidential prelitigation proceedings. The district court struck these experts for exposure to confidential information, then struck replacement experts for untimely designation under the scheduling order, ultimately granting summary judgment for defendants.

Key Legal Issues
The case presented two critical questions: (1) whether expert witnesses must be automatically excluded upon exposure to confidential prelitigation panel information, and (2) whether Rule 16(d) or Rule 37(h) governs sanctions for untimely expert designations under scheduling orders.

Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Supreme Court reversed both rulings, applying de novo review to the legal question of expert exclusion and abuse of discretion review to scheduling order sanctions. The court held that automatic exclusion is inappropriate without first determining whether experts actually relied on confidential information and whether they can form independent opinions. Drawing from federal precedent involving protected reports, the court noted that experts can “compartmentalize” confidential information. The court also clarified that Rule 16(d) governs sanctions for scheduling order violations, rejecting court of appeals precedent applying Rule 37(h) to untimely designations.

Practice Implications
This decision protects litigants from automatic expert exclusion while preserving confidentiality protections. Practitioners should request evidentiary hearings when confidential exposure occurs, focusing on whether experts can form independent opinions. The ruling also clarifies that courts have broader discretion under Rule 16(d) for scheduling violations, making witness exclusion less likely than under Rule 37(h)’s mandatory framework.