Rules of Civil Procedure

URCP 010. Form of pleadings and other papers. Amend. Requires designation of the discovery tier in the caption of a claim. Requires a court-approved coversheet for counterclaims and cross claims as well as complaints. Requires that a lawyer’s contact information on a paper be the same as on file with the Utah State Bar.
URCP 011. Signing of pleadings, motions, affidavits, and other papers; representations to court; sanctions. Amend. Deletes a provision that conflicts with Rule 26(e). The consequence will be that the signature on disclosures, discovery requests and discovery responses is a certification under Rule 11.
URCP 026. General provisions governing disclosure and discovery. Amend. Changes the time for initial disclosures. Provides for timing of disclosure and discovery of rebuttal experts. Clarifies that disclosure and discovery documents must be served.
URCP 026.02. Disclosures in personal injury actions. Amend. Narrows the limitation on the further use of disclosures to Plaintiff’s Social Security number and Medicare health insurance claim numbers. In a committee note, describes the committee’s intent regarding the scope of the rule.
URCP 037. Discovery and disclosure motions; Sanctions. Amend. Allows the court to enter sanctions if a motion for a protective order or motion to compel is denied.
URCP 105. Shortening 90 day waiting period in domestic matters. Amend. Changes the standard of “good cause” to extraordinary circumstances” in keeping with Section 30-3-18.

Utah Courts

View more posts from this author
7 thoughts on “Rules of Civil Procedure
  1. Rule 10

    Rule 10 requires that attorney contact information on the caption of a pleading be the same as is listed with the Utah State Bar. The rule should NOT require this. The proposed amendment ignores the reality that many attorneys and law firms that have more than one office and more than one address.
    The proposed amendment to Rule 10 increases the administrative burden and cost to clients when an attorney has more than one office address because Clients must pay to have documents transferred between offices.
    There is nothing wrong with requiring opposing counsel to send papers to the address on a caption instead of the address on file with the Bar. A better solution would be to amend to rules to require the Court and Counsel to serve an attorney at one email address, which can be accessed anywhere in the world by the recipient attorney.

  2. Al Gray

    Regarding URCP 010 – It is a good change to require the tier to appear in the caption. However I have already had the experience that one tier is claimed in the complaint together with an inconsistent amount of damages with that plead tier. (i.e. a tier 1 pled case specifically asking for tier 3 damages). This rule should clarify what tier is being plead and that the caption governs over any inconsistent pleading….or something to this effect. Better to fix this now. Al Gray

  3. Ryan Atkinson

    I think the changes to Rules 26 and 26.2 are good. One issue has recently come up with the new rules that I think the Committee needs to address. An attorney for the plaintiff in a personal injury case our Firm is handling filed his client’s Retained Expert Disclosures with his client’s Initial Disclosures. He is taking the position that his filing triggers the requirement for the defendant to elect a report or a deposition and that we need to get started on expert discovery now. We have taken the position that his client can certainly choose to designate early, but the defense does not need to make our election of a report or deposition until the close of fact discovery. I do not think the new rule is intended to force the defense into undertaking expert discovery before discovering the basic facts of the case. Hypothetically, if the plaintiff’s attorney in our case is correct, a plaintiff could file their expert disclosures with their Complaint and the defense would have to determine which experts they intend to use before even having an opportunity to review a plaintiff’s initial disclosures.

  4. R. King

    The proposed amendment to Rule 10, that all pleadings and papers have the same one contact information as is listed with the Utah Bar Association, is unnecessary and burdens attorneys who have more than one office.
    Many attorneys and law firms have more than one office. Moreover, as the practice of law becomes more mobile, many attorneys have post office boxes, and work from home. The rules should accommodate the reality of the practice of law, and reflect the changes in the practice of law, rather than attempt to prevent change.
    Requiring attorneys with more than one office to use only one address will increase costs for clients because of the increased administrative burden created by processing and transmitting papers at two offices, rather than at one office. There will be increased cost incurred when an attorney has to transmit copies from one office to the office where a case is actually being handled.
    A better solution is to require that each attorney have an email address, and that all papers be served on an attorney at that email address, which the attorney can access anywhere in the world. It works in federal court. There is no reason it can’t work in Utah.

  5. Ashley Bown

    I agree with the comments already posted regarding Rule 10. It is unnecessary to require one mailing address. And requiring one email address should be sufficient instead of a physical mailing address to accomplish whatever goal this rule change was intended for.
    I do not like the change to Rule 26(a)(2)(B), which requires a defendant to automatically serve his/her answers without compliance by the plaintiff. If a plaintiff fails to comply with filing his/her initial disclosures, then a defendant should be able to bring a motion to compel or dismiss before being required to go to the expense of preparing initial disclosures. I think the current version of the rule is better.

  6. M. Barnhill

    I have a comment to go along with the change to Rule 26(a)(2)(B). Rule 26(c)(5) states that the time for discovery runs from when the defendant’s first disclosure is due. With the limits on fact discovery in Rule 26(c), plaintiffs don’t want to start discovery until they receive the defendant’s disclosures. If a defendant serves his disclosures late, the time available to the plaintiff is reduced because a plaintiff can’t waste discovery requests on information he may get in the tardy disclosure. Thus, the plaintiff waits for a week or a month for disclosures, burning valuable discovery time. It would be better to have the fact discovery period begin when the defendant’s first disclosure is served rather than when it is due. That way, plaintiffs get the full time allotted, and the parties won’t have to ask the Court for extra time because a defendant served his initial disclosures late.