Utah Court of Appeals hears dispute over expert disclosure, exclusion in Alomari v. UDOT

At an oral argument before the Utah Court of Appeals, attorneys for the parties in Alomari v. Utah Department of Transportation disputed whether the district court properly excluded a plaintiff expert after finding the expert designation insufficient under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 26.

The question framed for the panel was whether the designation’s description of topics — signage, road conditions, standards for contractors and contributing factors — satisfied the rule’s requirement for a “brief summary of the opinions” and whether exclusion under Rule 26(d)(4) was mandatory or whether the district court should have imposed a lesser sanction.

Attorney Waymond Stoddard, representing the appellants, told the court that the designation identified narrow subjects for testimony and argued those subjects, together with a later-served report, should have been sufficient. Stoddard summarized the appellant’s issues as: "1, did the Alomari's disclosure of the expert . . . satisfy the requirements of Utah rule of civil procedure 26? 2, . . . Was there a lesser sanction that was appropriate .…