Baumann v. The Kroger Company
381 P.3d 1135
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Kari Baumann sued Kroger and Dr. Gregory Tayler for alleged overmedication leading to hypotension; original 2007 suit was dismissed and she refiled under Utah’s savings statute in 2013.
- Parties stipulated to a discovery schedule requiring expert disclosures by June 6, 2014, and completion of expert discovery by September 5, 2014.
- Baumann, proceeding pro se after counsel withdrew, did not provide expert disclosures or reports by the deadlines; defendants moved for summary judgment on September 11, 2014.
- Baumann filed voluminous materials after defendants submitted the motion for decision; she filed a single expert report (only applicable to Kroger) on the day of the first hearing and none for Dr. Tayler.
- The district court precluded Baumann from using any undisclosed witnesses or materials under Utah R. Civ. P. 26(d)(4) and granted summary judgment because expert testimony was required to prove the standard of care and causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by refusing to allow a belated expert designation for Dr. Tayler | Baumann argues the court should have permitted designation of an expert report for Dr. Tayler | Defendants contend Baumann failed to preserve the issue and never sought leave to designate an expert for Tayler | Not preserved; court declines to address because Baumann never requested relief below |
| Whether the district court erred by excluding Baumann’s late expert report for Kroger under Rule 26(d)(4) | Baumann argues the court should have applied Rule 16(d) (discretionary sanctions) instead of mandatory exclusion under Rule 26(d)(4) | Defendants argue Rule 26 governs discovery disclosures and mandates exclusion absent good cause or harmlessness | Court applied Rule 26(d)(4) and affirmed exclusion; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether exclusion was inappropriate given Baumann’s pro se status and financial hardship | Baumann asserts pro se status and cost concerns justify leniency and late disclosure | Defendants respond that pro se litigants must follow the same procedural rules; no good cause shown | Court rejects leniency; pro se status does not excuse compliance with disclosure rules |
| Whether Rule 26 or Rule 16 controls sanctions for missed expert-disclosure deadlines | Baumann urges Rule 16 (more permissive) based on Coroles | Defendants and court treat expert disclosure failures as Rule 26 violations triggering mandatory exclusion unless harmless or for good cause | Court holds Rule 26 controls for failure to disclose experts; Rule 26(d)(4) exclusion appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Townhomes at Pointe Meadows Owners Ass’n v. Pointe Meadows Townhomes, LLC, 329 P.3d 815 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (discusses expert disclosure/report requirements and mandatory exclusion framework)
- Bodell Constr. Co. v. Robbins, 215 P.3d 933 (Utah 2009) (characterizes late expert reports as failures to disclose meriting exclusion)
- Posner v. Equity Title Ins. Agency, Inc., 222 P.3d 775 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (supports exclusion of untimely expert disclosures absent good cause or harmlessness)
- Coroles v. State, 349 P.3d 739 (Utah 2015) (explains Rule 16(d) sanctions but did not interpret Rule 26 and therefore does not displace Rule 26 exclusion for discovery nondisclosure)
- Sleepy Holdings LLC v. Mountain West Title, 370 P.3d 963 (Utah Ct. App. 2016) (applies Rule 26 exclusion for disclosure failures and rejects application of Coroles to circumvent Rule 26)