Dahl v. Harrison
2011 UT App 389
| Utah Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Dahl sued Harrison and Harrison, P.C. for legal malpractice; bench trial in Oct 2009 resulted in judgment for Lawyer and dismissal of Dahl's claim.
- Nov 2007 disqualification motion against Dahl's counsel; resolved by stipulation in Feb 2008; case continued.
- Scheduling order (Jan 2008) set fact discovery by Apr 7, 2008 and expert disclosures by May 5, 2008; Lawyer pursued discovery, Dahl served first discovery on Apr 7.
- May 15, 2008 Dahl moved to amend scheduling order to extend deadlines; Aug 2008 court extended expert disclosures to Sept 8 but denied fact-discovery extension; court found Dahl dilatory and prejudicial to Lawyer.
- Sept 8, 2008 Dahl disclosed experts; Lawyer moved to strike the expert disclosures as inadequate under Rule 37(f); Dahl attempted to respond but the court struck the reports.
- Dec 2008 hearing: court granted strike, denied leave to amend; Jan 2009 Dahl sought to have experts testify; March 2009 hearing denied; Dahl awarded costs and attorney fees against her; June 2009 bifurcated trial; liability found for Lawyer on all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether strike of expert witnesses was an abuse of discretion | Dahl argues court should have allowed amendment; sanction too harsh | Expert reports inadequate; need to enforce Rule 26(a)(3) sanctions | No abuse; exclusion upheld |
| Whether denial of extension to amend disclosures and denial to allow trial testimony was error | Dahl timely disclosed; extension needed; prejudice minimal | Rule 37(f) mandates exclusion for failure to disclose; no good cause | No abuse; rule 37(f) applicable; denial affirmed |
| Whether trial court erred in granting protective order and denying extension of fact discovery | Protecting Lawyer's time prejudiced Dahl | Dahl delayed discovery; court properly managed scheduling | No abuse; protective order affirmed |
| Whether attorney fees awarded against Dahl were proper | Fees were misapplied; statute/equitable powers improper | Fees authorized by court's powers when frivolous actions occur | Fees improper; vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Welsh v. Hospital Corp. of Utah, 235 P.3d 791 (Utah 2010) (discovery sanctions require willfulness or bad faith and reasonable extensions)
- Dugan v. Jones, 615 P.2d 1239 (Utah 1980) (predecessor to rule 16; cautionary factors for exclusion of witnesses)
- Arnold v. Curtis, 846 P.2d 1307 (Utah 1993) (amendment of scheduling orders and discovery management authorities)
- Rohan v. Boseman, 46 P.3d 753 (Utah App. 2002) (inherent powers to award fees where appropriate)
- Barnard v. Mansell, 221 P.3d 874 (Utah App. 2009) (rule 11 sanctions procedures; strict compliance required)