Mercado v. Hill, 273 P.3d 385

Plaintiffs Mercado and Quispe were involved in a February 2007 traffic collision and sued Hill and Diamond Line Delivery System in November 2007 for negligence.
Defendants served requests for admission in September 2009; Plaintiffs' counsel did not respond, so admissions were deemed admitted under Utah Rule 36.
Defendants moved for summary judgment in October 2009; Plaintiffs failed to respond to Hill’s motion and filed a late, cursory response to Diamond Line’s motion without supporting affidavits or evidence.
The trial court granted summary judgment against Plaintiffs in December 2009; later, Diamond Line was dismissed after a January 2010 order, and judgment favored Hill was entered in June 2010.
Plaintiffs appealed, challenging the summary judgment, denial of a Rule 59 motion, and the denial of a motion to quash or withdraw admissions; their counsel’s conduct in briefing and discovery is recurrently criticized.
The appellate court affirmed, declining to reach remaining challenges due to inadequate briefing and failure to comply with appellate procedure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying withdrawal of admissions	Plaintiffs contend admissions should be withdrawn given counsel's failures and prejudice to merits.	Defendants argue Rule 36 requires strict enforcement; withdrawal only for justified reasons and lack of prejudice, which were not shown.	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed.
Whether summary judgment was proper based on deemed admissions	Plaintiffs argue admissions were not dispositive of liability or damages.	Admissions conclusively establish some facts supporting summary judgment.	Summary judgment affirmed.
Whether the denial of the Rule 59 motion for a new trial or to alter judgment was proper	Plaintiffs sought a new trial or relief from the judgment due to discovery conduct and admissions.	The court acted within discretion and did not abuse it in denying relief.	Rule 59 motion denied.
Whether the remaining issues were properly addressed given inadequate briefing	Plaintiffs contest other trial court rulings and findings.	The appellate brief inadequately briefed issues with insufficient citations.	Merits not reached; remaining challenges deemed inadequately briefed.

Langeland v. Monarch Motors, Inc., 952 P.2d 1058 (Utah 1998) (abuse-of-discretion standard for denying withdrawal of admissions)
In re E.R., 2 P.3d 948 (Utah Ct. App. 2000) (admissions rule strictness and consequences for nonresponse)
State v. Sloan, 72 P.3d 138 (Utah Ct. App. 2003) (adequacy of briefing; standards for insufficiency arguments)
Gardner v. Board of Cnty. Comm’rs, 178 P.3d 893 (Utah 2008) (trial court broad discretion in discovery matters)