Utah Court of Appeals
Must Utah parties object to discovery requests that exceed tier limits? Lewis v. Nelson Explained
Summary
Lewis sued Nelson for breach of contract seeking $15,020 in damages. When Lewis propounded discovery requests exceeding Tier 1 limits without seeking extraordinary discovery, and Nelson failed to respond to the excessive requests, the trial court granted summary judgment treating the unanswered requests as admitted under rule 36.
Analysis
In Lewis v. Nelson, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed a significant question about discovery obligations under the tiered discovery system established by the 2011 amendments to Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 26. The case clarifies when parties must respond to discovery requests that exceed the standard limits for their case tier.
Background and Facts
Lewis sued Nelson for breach of contract in a Tier 1 case (involving $15,020 in damages). Lewis served thirty requests for admission, thirteen interrogatories, and thirteen requests for production—far exceeding the Tier 1 limits of five requests for admission, five requests for production, and zero interrogatories. Nelson objected on proportionality grounds, but the trial court overruled his objections. Nelson responded only to the first five requests in each category and declined to answer the interrogatories, noting they were not permitted in Tier 1 cases. Lewis moved for summary judgment, arguing that the unanswered requests were automatically admitted under rule 36.
Key Legal Issues
The court addressed whether failure to respond to discovery requests exceeding Tier 1 limits results in automatic admission under rule 36, and whether the 2011 amendments to rule 26 changed the burden regarding extraordinary discovery requests.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Lewis was not entitled to extraordinary discovery because he failed to follow the procedures in rule 26(c)(6). The 2011 amendments shifted the burden to the requesting party to obtain permission for discovery beyond tier limits, either through stipulation or court approval. The court emphasized that requiring responding parties to object to excessive requests “would turn the amended rule 26 on its head.”
Practice Implications
This decision significantly impacts discovery practice in Utah courts. Practitioners serving discovery must ensure their requests comply with tier limits or properly seek extraordinary discovery. Responding parties facing excessive discovery requests need not object—the burden falls entirely on the requesting party to justify and obtain approval for additional discovery. This represents a major shift from pre-2011 practice where failure to object could result in automatic admissions.
Case Details
Case Name
Lewis v. Nelson
Citation
2015 UT App 262
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20141086-CA
Date Decided
October 29, 2015
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
A party seeking discovery beyond the Tier 1 limits must follow the prescribed procedures in rule 26(c)(6), and failure to respond to improperly excessive discovery requests does not trigger automatic admission under rule 36.
Standard of Review
Correctness for questions of law regarding interpretation of the rules of civil procedure
Practice Tip
When opposing parties serve discovery requests exceeding tier limits, responding parties need not object to the excessive requests; instead, the requesting party bears the burden of obtaining court approval or stipulation for extraordinary discovery under rule 26(c)(6).
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.