Clifford P.D. Redekop Family LLC v. Utah County Real Estate LLC
378 P.3d 109
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2005 Redekop purchased two commercial office condominiums through Prudential under a limited agency consent; years later tenants disputed the advertised square footage, stopped paying rent, and Redekop defaulted and lost the property to foreclosure.
- Redekop sued Prudential (breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, etc.) in 2011, alleging Prudential knowingly misrepresented square footage.
- Court orders set expert disclosure deadlines; after extensions Redekop’s initial expert disclosure was conclusory (floor plans, no analysis, no individual expert qualifications).
- Redekop supplemented at the close of expert discovery with names of three Pontis Architectural Group individuals and a brochure; Prudential objected as untimely and insufficient and moved to exclude.
- The district court excluded Redekop’s expert as a Rule 37 sanction for willful, prejudicial noncompliance with the scheduling order, found expert testimony necessary to resolve how commercial rentable square footage is calculated, and granted summary judgment for Prudential.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Redekop substantially complied with the 2014 Scheduling Order such that sanctions were improper | Redekop: disclosure was adequate/substantial; sanction was docket-clearing abuse | Prudential: disclosure was grossly deficient and untimely, prejudicing its ability to depose and rebut | Court: disclosure was willful/noncompliant; exclusion under Rule 37 was within discretion; affirmed |
| Whether exclusion of expert was an abuse of discretion | Redekop: sanction was excessive and unwarranted given circumstances | Prudential: exclusion appropriate given willful noncompliance and prejudice | Court: no abuse of discretion; factual record supports sanction |
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove square footage dispute | Redekop: lay testimony/measurements and jury can resolve; precise expert not needed | Prudential: commercial square footage involves specialized methodology (core factor, allocation of common areas) requiring expertise | Court: expert testimony required; methodology not within common knowledge; jury would otherwise speculate |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate absent Redekop’s expert | Redekop: summary judgment improper because factual dispute exists and lay evidence suffices | Prudential: without expert, Redekop cannot meet burden on standard/methodology; Prudential’s expert is unrebutted | Court: summary judgment proper because exclusion left Prudential’s expert unrebutted and expert testimony was necessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Kilpatrick v. Bullough Abatement, Inc., 199 P.3d 957 (Utah 2008) (standard of review and deference for discovery sanctions)
- Coroles v. State, 349 P.3d 739 (Utah 2015) (court’s broad authority under Rule 16 and caution when exclusion effectively disposes of claims)
- Morton v. Continental Baking Co., 938 P.2d 271 (Utah 1997) (requirement that noncompliance be willful, bad faith, or fault before Rule 37 sanctions)
- State v. Rothlisberger, 147 P.3d 1176 (Utah 2006) (test whether testimony requires specialized knowledge beyond an average bystander)
- Townhomes at Pointe Meadows Owners Ass’n v. Pointe Meadows Townhomes, LLC, 329 P.3d 815 (Utah Ct. App. 2014) (expert testimony ordinarily needed to establish industry standard of care)