Lewis v. Nelson
366 P.3d 848
Utah Ct. App.2015Background
- Nelson negotiated to buy Lewis’s Nutty Guys supply route and paid about $11,000 before stopping; Lewis sued for breach of contract/unjust enrichment seeking $15,020.
- Lewis served extensive discovery: 30 requests for admission, 13 interrogatories, 13 requests for production; Nelson objected as disproportionate under Utah R. Civ. P. 26(c)(5) (Tier 1 limits).
- The trial court overruled Nelson’s objections and ordered Nelson to respond by a deadline; Nelson answered only five admissions and five productions and declined to answer remaining discovery as exceeding Tier 1 limits.
- Lewis moved for summary judgment, asserting unanswered requests were deemed admitted under Utah R. Civ. P. 36; trial court granted summary judgment for Lewis.
- On appeal, Nelson argued the 2011 amendments to Rule 26 require the discovery-seeking party to obtain extraordinary discovery by stipulation or court application, so exceeding requests are not automatically effective and unanswered excess requests are not automatically admitted.
- The Utah Court of Appeals agreed, holding Lewis had not followed Rule 26(c)(6) procedures for extraordinary discovery; therefore the unanswered excess requests were not deemed admitted and genuine issues of material fact remained.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unanswered portions of excessive discovery are automatically deemed admitted under Rule 36 | Lewis: unanswered requests are admitted; court ordered responses | Nelson: requests exceeded Tier 1 limits; Lewis never obtained extraordinary discovery, so he could refuse to answer excess requests | Held: Not admitted. Under 2011 Rule 26, party seeking extra discovery must obtain stipulation or court approval; failure to follow means unanswered excess requests are not automatically admitted |
| Whether Lewis was entitled to summary judgment despite procedural error | Lewis: even if some procedural error, Nelson failed to dispute material facts | Nelson: disputed existence/terms of contract, presented factual disputes | Held: Summary judgment improper because material factual disputes exist once excess requests are not deemed admitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Nunley v. Westates Casing Servs., Inc., 989 P.2d 1077 (Utah 1999) (standard of review: interpretation of rules of civil procedure is reviewed for correctness)
- In re E.R., 2 P.3d 948 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (explaining rule 36 auto-admission where requests are properly served and unanswered)
- Kotter v. Kotter, 206 P.3d 633 (Utah Ct. App. 2009) (discussing obligation to object to avoid automatic admission)