518 P.3d 184
Utah Ct. App.2022Background
- In 2014 Wallace crashed her bicycle on a parking-strip drop-off and sued contractors (Fugal and Pathway) for negligence in 2016. Trial was set for January 6, 2020.
- Multiple attorneys appeared for Wallace: original counsel James Hasenyager (until October 2019), co-counsel Lani Wallace (appeared July 2017), then Bret Bryce (appeared December 2019) and briefly Lucas Adams. Several motions to withdraw were filed.
- The court ordered pretrial witness and exhibit disclosures 28 days before trial, making the disclosure deadline December 9, 2019. Wallace’s pretrial disclosures were not filed until December 16, 2019.
- Fugal moved to exclude undisclosed witnesses/documents under Utah R. Civ. P. 26(d)(4). The district court excluded Wallace’s witnesses and documents and dismissed her case with prejudice because she could not present her case.
- Wallace moved for relief under Rule 60(b), arguing excusable neglect and a due-process violation (she was allegedly forced to proceed pro se without notice of disclosure obligations); the court denied relief. Wallace appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion by excluding Wallace’s witnesses/documents for untimely pretrial disclosures and dismissing the case | Wallace: delay was short and excusable (counsel withdrawals, health, confusion about representation); exclusion was unduly harsh | Fugal: disclosures were untimely, prejudicial given trial timing and holiday period; no good cause shown | No abuse of discretion. Disclosures were late, not harmless, and Wallace was represented when disclosures were due, so exclusion and dismissal were appropriate |
| Whether the court violated Wallace’s due process rights by forcing her to proceed pro se and defaulting her on a technicality | Wallace: court effectively forced her to proceed without counsel and failed to explain pretrial obligations | Fugal: Wallace was represented at critical times; she never actually acted pro se at the disclosure deadline | No due-process violation. Record shows Wallace was represented when disclosures were due and was not compelled to proceed pro se |
| Whether Rule 60(b) relief was warranted based on excusable neglect or misconduct by defense counsel | Wallace: excusable neglect (health, counsel confusion) and alleged defense misconduct; therefore relief from dismissal is proper | Fugal: no excusable neglect shown; Wallace was represented and had notice of deadlines | Denial of Rule 60(b) relief affirmed. Wallace failed to show good cause or excusable neglect and did not preserve an equitable-estoppel claim |
Key Cases Cited
- VT Holdings LLC v. My Investing Place LLC, 440 P.3d 767 (Utah Ct. App. 2019) (appellate deference to district court discovery rulings)
- Dahl v. Dahl, 459 P.3d 276 (Utah 2015) (district court has broad discretion in discovery sanctions)
- Gunn Hill Dairy Props., LLC v. Los Angeles Dep’t of Water & Power, 361 P.3d 703 (Utah Ct. App. 2015) (appellate review recognizes deference to discretionary trial rulings)
- In re J.M., 463 P.3d 66 (Utah Ct. App. 2020) (deferential standard for discretionary determinations)
- Salt Lake City Corp. v. Jordan River Restoration Network, 299 P.3d 990 (Utah 2012) (standards for reviewing due-process and subsidiary factual determinations)
- State v. Van Huizen, 435 P.3d 202 (Utah 2019) (preservation rules and exceptions for appellate review)