Coroles v. State
349 P.3d 739
Utah2015Background
- Thomas Coroles died of pneumonia after treatment; his wife Michelle pursued a medical-malpractice claim and completed the Malpractice Act prelitigation panel process.
- Counsel for Mrs. Coroles sent introductory letters to two expert physicians that referenced alleged opinions from the confidential prelitigation panel.
- Defendants moved to strike those two experts for exposure to confidential prelitigation information; shortly thereafter Mrs. Coroles served two supplemental expert designations.
- The district court struck the original experts for exposure to confidential panel information (per se) and struck the supplemental experts as untimely under the scheduling order, then entered summary judgment for defendants.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether (1) experts exposed to confidential prelitigation information must be excluded without inquiry, and (2) exclusion of untimely-designated replacement experts was a proper sanction and under which rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether experts who were exposed to confidential prelitigation-panel information must be excluded per se | Coroles: Court should not exclude experts automatically; must inquire whether experts relied on the confidential information or can form opinions independent of it | Defendants: Exposure to confidential panel opinions violated Malpractice Act confidentiality and requires exclusion | Held: Reversed exclusion; court must determine whether experts relied on confidential info and whether they can render opinions without it; per se exclusion is improper |
| Proper standard and authority to sanction untimely expert designations under a scheduling order | Coroles: Rule 16(d) governs late production and grants discretion; exclusion is extreme and other sanctions are available | Defendants: Untimely designation justifies exclusion; cited rule 37(h) authority requiring exclusion unless harmless/good cause | Held: Court erred by applying rule 37(h); rule 16(d) applies to late disclosure under scheduling orders and exclusion is discretionary; exclusion of supplemental experts was an abuse of discretion on these facts |
| Whether district court may compel experts to “compartmentalize” confidential information | Coroles: Experts can be instructed to disregard confidential info if they can form independent opinions | Defendants: Argued experts’ opinions are tainted and exclusion necessary to protect confidentiality | Held: Court may require experts to exclude confidential material from basis of opinions and may use protective measures (sealing, in camera, instructions); exclusion only if expert relied on confidential info and cannot provide independent opinion |
| Whether exclusion of supplemental experts as sanction was appropriate here | Coroles: Sanction disproportionate, counsel’s error, no prejudice, substitutes timely for remaining schedule; less severe sanctions available | Defendants: Late designation prejudiced defendants and warranted exclusion | Held: Exclusion was excessive; factors (timeliness, prejudice, fault) did not justify such a draconian sanction here; remand for reconsideration under rule 16(d) standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Goggin v. Goggin, 299 P.3d 1079 (Utah 2013) (discovery sanctions reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Boice ex rel. Boice v. Marble, 982 P.2d 565 (Utah 1999) (rule 16(d) sanctions and substitution of expert analysis)
- Robertson v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 954 F.2d 1433 (8th Cir. 1992) (interpretation of statutory confidentiality limiting admissibility of safety reports)
- United States v. Egan Marine Corp., 808 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (expert exposure to inadmissible casualty reports does not require automatic exclusion)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Electrolux Home Prods., Inc., 840 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (court may require expert to exclude confidential material from opinion rather than disqualify)