Utah Court of Appeals
Can Utah courts exclude expert testimony when a witness is disclosed only as a fact witness? Solis v. Burningham Enterprises Explained
Summary
Plaintiff Solis sued defendants after her husband died in a multi-vehicle accident, seeking to introduce expert testimony from a Utah Highway Patrol officer who was disclosed only as a fact witness. The trial court excluded the officer’s expert opinion regarding which vehicle left skid marks, and the jury found in favor of defendants.
Analysis
In Solis v. Burningham Enterprises, the Utah Court of Appeals reinforced the strict requirements for expert witness disclosures, affirming a trial court’s exclusion of expert testimony when a witness was designated only as a fact witness.
Background and Facts
Following a fatal multi-vehicle accident on I-15, Kris Solis sued Burningham Enterprises and its employee Raymond Davis for negligence. In her initial disclosures, Solis listed Utah Highway Patrol officers as fact witnesses who responded to the accident scene. During Officer Matthew Urban’s deposition, Solis elicited testimony about his expertise in accident reconstruction and his conclusion that the defendant’s truck left a 248-foot skid mark. However, Solis never designated Urban as an expert witness in her Rule 26(a)(3)(A) disclosures.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue was whether Solis’s disclosure of Urban as a fact witness, combined with disclosure of the UHP accident reconstruction diagram, satisfied the expert witness disclosure requirements under Rule 26(a)(3)(A). Defendants moved to exclude Urban’s expert opinion, arguing Solis failed to properly designate him as an expert witness.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s exclusion, emphasizing that Rule 26(a)(3)(A) requires parties to specifically identify witnesses who may present expert testimony. The court rejected Solis’s “substance-over-form” argument, noting that her initial disclosures described UHP officers only as witnesses providing “facts and information about the incident,” not as experts offering specialized knowledge. Even though Urban’s opinion was explored during deposition, the court found this did not excuse the disclosure failure because defendants were prejudiced—they would have conducted different discovery had they known Urban would testify as an expert.
Practice Implications
This decision underscores Utah’s strict approach to expert witness disclosures. Courts will not accept “substantial compliance” arguments when parties fail to specifically designate expert witnesses. The ruling also highlights that Rule 37(f) mandates automatic exclusion unless the failure is harmless or shows good cause. Practitioners must be particularly careful when dealing with dual-role witnesses like treating physicians or investigating officers who may provide both factual observations and expert opinions.
Case Details
Case Name
Solis v. Burningham Enterprises
Citation
2015 UT App 11
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20130649-CA
Date Decided
January 15, 2015
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A party must specifically designate an expert witness under Rule 26(a)(3)(A) and cannot rely on disclosing that witness only as a fact witness, even when the expert’s opinion is revealed during deposition.
Standard of Review
Correctness for interpretation of rules of civil procedure; abuse of discretion for exclusion of testimony and case management decisions
Practice Tip
Always designate potential expert witnesses specifically in expert disclosures, even if they were initially identified as fact witnesses—substance-over-form arguments rarely succeed in overcoming disclosure failures.
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.