Butler v. Mediaport Entertainment, 508 P.3d 619

Background

Butler founded Mediaport, which Red Touch later acquired; an employment agreement (attached) provided severance of "three (3) full years of Base Salary" on termination and defined Base Salary by Schedule A as $130,000 (with potential increases).
Butler was terminated in Feb 2013; Mediaport refused to pay and sued for a declaration the Agreement was unenforceable; Butler counterclaimed (breach of contract, conversion, breach of implied covenant, defamation, tortious interference) seeking over $1M, and attached the Agreement.
Butler’s Rule 26(a)(1) initial damages disclosure consisted solely of an estimated total (~$900,000) with no category-by-category computation or methodology; he produced documents (including a Hubbard Letter) but never supplied a damages computation or meaningful supplementation.
Discovery showed Butler gave vague interrogatory responses and deposition testimony about pay and deferred compensation; fact discovery closed in 2015 and the case largely lay dormant until subsequent motions.
Mediaport moved to exclude Butler’s damages evidence for Rule 26 noncompliance; the court ultimately excluded all damages evidence (including contract severance), granted summary judgment on damages claims, dismissed Butler’s counterclaims, and denied Mediaport’s fee motion because the Agreement’s fee clause applied only to arbitration.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mediaport)	Defendant's Argument (Butler)	Held
Were Butler’s Rule 26(a)(1)(C) damages disclosures adequate?	Disclosures were inadequate; plaintiff (Butler) failed to provide computation/method and thus harmed defense.	Disclosures (and later produced documents) gave sufficient notice of claimed damages and methods.	Disclosures were inadequate: the initial estimate was conclusory and lacked categories/method.
If inadequate, was the failure harmless?	Failure was not harmless because lack of computation impaired Mediaport’s ability to build a defense during discovery.	Any failure was harmless — Mediaport had documents (Hubbard Letter, pleadings, discovery) and knew the case tier and damages theory.	District court did not abuse discretion: failure was not harmless given complexity and timing of evidence; exclusion and dismissal affirmed.
Did exclusion of damages evidence justify summary dismissal of Butler’s claims?	With damages evidence excluded, Butler could not prove damages and dismissal was appropriate.	Dismissal denied Butler his day in court and was improper.	Dismissal for lack of admissible damages evidence was proper.
Was Mediaport entitled to recover attorneys’ fees under the Agreement?	Mediaport sought fees under the Agreement (and reciprocal fee statute) despite litigating in court.	The Agreement’s plain language limits fee recovery to "in connection with any arbitration."	Fees denied: Agreement only authorizes recovery of fees in arbitration; court correctly refused fees for court litigation.

Key Cases Cited

Keystone Insurance Agency, LLC v. Inside Insurance, LLC, 445 P.3d 434 (Utah 2019) (damages-disclosure rule requires computation/method early; complex damages disclosed late are not harmless)
Williams v. Anderson, 400 P.3d 1071 (Utah Ct. App. 2017) (adequate disclosure where plaintiff gave precise method for computing single damages item)
Chard v. Chard, 456 P.3d 776 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (harmlessness turns on whether defendant could build a defense during discovery; simple, early-produced items favor harmlessness)
Vanlaningham v. Hart, 498 P.3d 27 (Utah Ct. App. 2021) (bottom-line figure without methodology is inadequate where damages are composite)
Bad Ass Coffee Co. of Hawaii v. Royal Aloha Int’l LLC, 473 P.3d 624 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (disclosure adequate where damages theory was simple and partially stipulated)
Giusti v. Sterling Wentworth Corp., 201 P.3d 966 (Utah 2009) (contractual fee-shifting is enforced only according to the contract's plain terms)
USA Power, LLC v. PacifiCorp, 372 P.3d 629 (Utah 2016) (American Rule: fees recoverable only by statute or contract)