Can courts exclude eminent domain evidence before discovery is complete? Rocky Mountain v. Marriott Explained

In Rocky Mountain Power Inc. v. Randy E. Marriott, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed when district courts may exclude evidence of highest and best use damages in eminent domain proceedings. The case provides important guidance on the timing of evidentiary rulings and the requirements for establishing legal feasibility of proposed land uses.

Background and Facts

Rocky Mountain Power condemned easements across approximately 453 acres of Marriott’s property to construct a transmission line. Marriott possessed small mining permits for ten acres and had applied for a large mining permit covering 145 acres. To support his just compensation claim, Marriott sought to introduce evidence that the transmission line interfered with potential mining operations, including areas that would require relocating existing utility lines and obtaining additional mining permits. Rocky Mountain filed motions to exclude this evidence, arguing the proposed mining was speculative. The district court granted these motions before fact and expert discovery concluded.

Key Legal Issues

The primary issues were whether the district court properly excluded evidence of potential mining damages when (1) the proposed mining required relocating utility lines owned by third parties, and (2) the mining would occur in areas not covered by existing permits. The court also addressed whether a provision allowing future payment of compensation violated Utah condemnation law.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reversed the exclusion of evidence, holding that landowners must be permitted to develop their claims through expert testimony before courts can rule on legal feasibility. To establish legal feasibility, landowners must show that legal barriers have a reasonable probability of being removed, not that removal is certain. The court emphasized that properly qualified experts could testify about the probability of obtaining utility relocations and additional mining permits. However, the court affirmed summary judgment striking the provision allowing future payments, finding it contrary to statutory requirements that compensation be paid within 30 days of final judgment.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that motions in limine should not be used as substitutes for summary judgment without proper procedural safeguards. District courts must allow landowners adequate opportunity to develop evidence supporting highest and best use claims through expert discovery. The ruling also clarifies that uncertainty about removing legal barriers does not automatically defeat legal feasibility—the standard is reasonable probability, not certainty. Practitioners should ensure discovery is substantially complete before filing dispositive motions regarding highest and best use evidence.