July 25, 2014 5:57 pm Published by Jeff Handy |

The Utah Court of Appeals recently emphasized the discretion a trial court has in managing its cases in the Townhomes at Pointe Meadows Owners Association v. Pointe Meadows Townhomes, LLC decision. 2014 UT App 52. This also reinforced the importance of timeliness in filing, and the necessity of expert testimony in construction related claims.

Plaintiff Townhomes at Pointe Meadows Owners Association (“Association”) filed suit against multiple parties who developed Townhomes at Point Meadows, a multi-unit townhome development in Lehi, Utah. The Association claimed that there were various defects in the construction of the common areas, and that the developer breached different warranties, covenants, and duties it owed to the Association.

After multiple delays and extensions of time during the discovery period, motions for summary judgment were filed arguing that the Association had not produced sufficient evidence to support its claims. In response, the Association filed a motion to extend discovery, and a motion in opposition to summary judgment. The Association did not disclose its expert testimony until it filed its motion in opposition. The trial court denied the Association’s motion to extend and granted the summary judgment against the Association.

The Association appealed this decision, and the court of appeals affirmed the district court’s ruling. The court explained that “[t]rial courts have broad discretion in managing the cases before them” and reversal is appropriate only “if there is no reasonable basis for the district court’s decision,” or in other words if there was an abuse of discretion.

The court of appeals did not find that the district court abused its discretion when it denied the Association’s motion to extend discovery. The district court examined the Association’s “pattern of delay and inaction” in the case. The Association had come to an agreement with the some of the defendants to extend the discovery deadline, but the parties didn’t involve certain third-party defendants in those discussions until two months after the deadline had passed. Reliance on this agreement was unreasonable because not all of the relevant parties were included in the initial discussions.

The Association argued that its expert testimony should not have been excluded because an expert report that is not disclosed within the established deadlines can still be allowed if it is shown that “good cause excuses tardiness or that the failure to disclose was harmless.” The district court found that the tardiness did not have good cause and that it was not harmless. This was justified in that the Association unreasonably relied on its agreement to extend. Additionally, some of the defendants had already retained and disclosed their own experts and such tardiness would require the defendants to have their experts revise their reports to respond to this new expert testimony. The court of appeals found no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s decision to exclude the Association’s expert testimony.

The court of appeals was not convinced by the Association’s argument that the claims did not require expert testimony. “Expert testimony is generally necessary in cases that involve trades or professions that require specialized knowledge, such as medicine, architecture, and engineering.” Since the district court’s dismissal of the Association’s expert testimony was affirmed, the Association did not have adequate evidence to support its claims, so the district court’s grant of summary judgment was affirmed.

So what does this all mean? It is best to not be late. Don’t miss deadlines in preparation for trial, and make sure you have an expert to support your claims. Trial courts are given great deference in respect to these issues on appeal, so it is best to do it right the first time.