Spafford v. Granite Credit Union
2011 UT App 401
| Utah Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Plaintiffs Iris M. and Earl S. Spafford sued Granite Credit Union for negligence and loss of consortium after Iris’s April 4, 2005 fall in Granite’s parking lot alleging design and construction defects.
- Multiple scheduling orders extended expert disclosure deadlines; final deadline was May 15, 2009, which the Spaffords did not meet.
- Granite disclosed its expert on June 12, 2009; the Spaffords filed pro se appearances and later served late expert disclosures on August 3, 2009 designating Clarence Kemp based on a Kemp Letter.
- Granite moved to strike the late disclosure, arguing Rule 26(a)(8)(B) compliance failures; Granite also moved for summary judgment supported by its expert report.
- Spaffords amended their disclosure and Kemp report on September 23, 2009; they sought additional time on October 5, 2009 and submitted Earl Spafford’s affidavit.
- The trial court struck the Spaffords’ expert disclosure and Kemp’s report, struck the Spafford Affidavit, denied enlargement of time, and granted Granite summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the fifth extension of time for expert disclosures was properly denied | Spafford contends neglect was excusable due to informal schedule; court abused discretion. | Granite contends strict adherence to scheduling orders and lack of excusable neglect. | No abuse; denial affirmed. |
| Whether the late expert disclosure and Kemp report were properly struck under Rule 37(f) and related sanctions | Granite foreknowledge and harmless impact despite lateness; argues for lesser sanction. | Late disclosure violated Rule 26(a)(8)(B) and prejudice to Granite supports exclusion. | Yes, exclusion upheld; Kemp report inadequate under Rule 26(a)(8)(B); summary judgment sustained. |
| Whether the Spafford Affidavit was improperly struck as conclusory | Affidavit contains personal observations; not improperly conclusory. | Affidavit improperly states legal conclusions and non-credible matters. | Affidavit partially struck; issue inadequately briefed; affirmed as not reversible error. |
| Whether expert testimony was required to prove breach of duty and causation | No need for civil engineeirng expert to prove curb-related danger; lay testimony suffices. | Causation and breach require expert testimony where beyond lay understanding. | Abstention upheld; with Kemp’s evidence struck, no admissible expert testimony remained; summary judgment in Granite’s favor. |
| Whether the rulings and procedures violated due process via the disqualification process | Granite’s opposition memorandum created appearance of impropriety necessitating disqualification. | No appearance of impropriety; rulings within lawful discretion. | No due process violation; no appearance of impropriety sufficient to disqualify. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sanders v. Leavitt, 37 P.3d 1052 (Utah 2001) (standard for reviewing summary judgment—view facts in light favorable to nonmovant)
- Fox v. Brigham Young University, 176 P.3d 446 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (expert testimony required for causation where beyond lay understanding)
- Preston & Chambers, P.C. v. Koller, 943 P.2d 260 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (trial court broad discretion in managing cases; Rule 37 dispositive sanctions theme)
- Murdock v. Springville Mun. Corp. (In re Rights to Use of All Water), 982 P.2d 65 (Utah 1999) (affidavits must be based on personal knowledge and be admissible; broad discretion standard)
- Cabaness v. Thomas, 232 P.3d 486 (Utah 2010) (unsubstantiated conclusions in affidavits are inadmissible)
- Butler v. Sports Haven International, 563 P.2d 1245 (Utah 1977) (summary judgment context; open questions resolved in plaintiff’s favor when reasonable)
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (U.S. 2009) (appearance of bias; due process considerations in disqualification)
- State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (plain error doctrine in Utah appellate review)
- State v. Ross, 951 P.2d 236 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (plain error considerations in appellate review)
- State v. Low, 2008 UT 58, 192 P.3d 867 (Utah 2008) (guidance on plain error showing necessity)
- State v. Dean, 2004 UT 63, 95 P.3d 276 (Utah 2004) (plain error framework and standards)
- Wycalis v. Guardian Title of Utah, 780 P.2d 821 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (expert standard-of-care and necessity in certain contexts)
- Alger v. CVS Mack Drug of New York, LLC, 39 A.D.3d 928, 833 N.Y.S.2d 289 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007) (curb/step design considerations in comparable context)