De la Cruz v. Ekstrom
De la Cruz v. Ekstrom, 2024 UT App 18 (Christiansen Foster, J.)
Civil Procedure
After a car accident, De la Cruz filed suit against Ekstrom. A week before close of fact discovery, De la Cruz served supplemental disclosures seeking an additional $70,000 in damages. The district court granted Ekstrom’s motion to exclude the supplemental disclosures and the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed, holding:
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding the supplemental disclosures untimely, harmful, and undertaken without good cause under rule 26 of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure.
- Concurrence: Judge Harris wrote emphasizing the role of the “generous standard of review” here, explaining that the district court’s ruling was toward the outer boundary of its discretion. Judge Harris urged district courts to exercise their discretion in aid of deciding cases on their merits and use less draconian ways to address procedural hiccups.