379 P.3d 14
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Ford and Tun divorced in 2008; divorce decree required Ford to pay monthly child support.
- In 2012 Ford moved to modify child support, property distribution, and visitation; Tun filed an ex parte order to show cause for unpaid support.
- Fact discovery closed; in April 2014 Ford served untimely discovery on Tun; Tun responded and served discovery on Ford, which he ignored.
- Tun warned Ford (and extended time) and then moved to strike his pleadings under Utah R. Civ. P. 37 after he failed to respond to requests for admission.
- At a June 26, 2014 hearing the court offered Ford a continuance if he produced discovery and paid Tun’s fees; Ford refused, the court struck his pleadings without prejudice and, under Rule 36, deemed Tun’s requests for admission admitted.
- Ford appealed, arguing (1) he had no obligation to respond to Tun’s late/ excess discovery and (2) the sanctions (striking pleadings/deeming admissions) were unduly harsh. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Tun) | Defendant's Argument (Ford) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Ford was required to respond to Tun’s requests for admission | Rule 36 requires a written response within 28 days; failing to respond results in admissions and Ford should have objected or moved for protective order | Requests were untimely and exceeded limits (12 vs. 10); thus no obligation to respond | Court: Rule 36 automatically deems matters admitted if no timely response; Ford had to object or move to withdraw admissions later—he did neither, so he was required to respond |
| Whether striking pleadings and deeming admissions was an abuse of discretion / unduly harsh sanction | Sanctions under Rule 37 are appropriate for discovery failures; district court properly exercised discretion and offered a less severe alternative (continuance for fees) | Sanction was harsh given circumstances and argument that requests were improper | Court: District court acted within broad discretion; evidentiary basis existed (Ford ignored discovery, refused offered remedy); sanction not an abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Morton v. Continental Baking Co., 938 P.2d 271 (Utah 1997) (explaining circumstances that merit Rule 37 sanctions)
- Bodell Constr. Co. v. Robbins, 215 P.3d 933 (Utah 2009) (discussing scope of sanctions available under Rule 37)
- Kilpatrick v. Bullough Abatement, Inc., 199 P.3d 957 (Utah 2008) (appellate deference to trial court’s discovery rulings and sanctions)
- Wright v. Wright, 941 P.2d 646 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (harsh sanctions under Rule 37 will not be disturbed absent clear abuse of discretion)