Utah Court Rules – Published for Comment
The Supreme Court and Judicial Council invite comments about amending these rules. To view the proposed amendment, click on the rule number.
To submit a comment or view the comments of others, click on “Continue Reading.” To submit a comment, scroll down to the “Leave a Reply” section, and type your comment in the “Comment” field. Type your name and email address in the designated fields and click “Post Comment.”
Comments cannot be acknowledged, but all will be considered. Comments are saved to a buffer for review before publication.
Posted: August 23, 2023
URCP056. Summary judgment. AMEND. The proposed changes to subparagraph (b) is aimed to provide clarity to the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment so as not to be dependent upon the close of discovery.
This is a good amendment. I do not like the 28-day deadline because it often does not make sense when a trial is scheduled long after discovery. I see no reason to discourage late-stage motions for summary judgment when the legal issue may inevitably be raised in a motion for judgment as a matter of law.
This rule change effectively deletes any deadline for summary judgment motions. By the time courts are setting Rule 16 pretrial conferences, cases are ready for trial; summary judgment deadlines at this late stage would stall trial proceedings. If a change must be made, at the very least, summary judgment motion deadlines should be tied to the close of expert discovery or a certain number of days before trial. Changing the rule to eliminate any deadline but allowing for the circumstance that the court “may” set a deadline sometime in the future is really no rule, or deadline, at all. I would leave the rule as it is.
I am in favor of this change. I never really saw any purpose to the 28 day restriction. Trials are often scheduled long after discovery closes, and I don’t really see any reason that summary judgment shouldn’t be available at any point in proceedings, as long as it’s not used as a tool to delay trial. Summary judgment is often useful for narrowing the issues at trial, and it’s not uncommon for the parties to realize late in the proceedings that there is some discrete legal or factual issue that needs to be resolved. Allowing full briefing on those issues is much better than trying to raise them at trial or trying to shoehorn them into another type of motion because a motion for summary judgment isn’t available.
I oppose this rule change. Having no deadline at all for summary judgment will encourage last minute motions, increasing the expense of litigation as well as the uncertainty. In cases where no deadline is set, late motions could quite possibly delay trial (or hastily-decided motions due to impending trials could delay or deny proper justice to the parties). The current 28-day deadline sets a reasonable expectation amongst the parties. And I have never seen a judge deny a reasonable request for an extension of that deadline. In short, the current rule gives attorneys some expectation of how litigation will proceed and does not prejudice anyone.
The permissive language of “may” in the proposed change means that there will not be any uniform practice or expectations for a summary judgment deadline–each judge will be free to do it his or her own way. Thus, we trade some modicum of consistency of expectation and practice (which is the entire purpose of the rules in the first place, isn’t it?) in exchange for no rule with a discretionary option for one. That is a bad trade.
This amendment is a solution looking for a problem where one does not exist.
I agree with comments made by Michelle Quist. Based on my experience she accurately represents the reality of what happens in litigation:
This rule change effectively deletes any deadline for summary judgment motions. By the time courts are setting Rule 16 pretrial conferences, cases are ready for trial; summary judgment deadlines at this late stage would stall trial proceedings. If a change must be made, at the very least, summary judgment motion deadlines should be tied to the close of expert discovery or a certain number of days before trial. Changing the rule to eliminate any deadline but allowing for the circumstance that the court “may” set a deadline sometime in the future is really no rule, or deadline, at all. I would leave the rule as it is.
Concur with and adopt other oppositions, including specifically Beau Burbidge’s opposition, dated September 6, 2023 at 12:31 pm.
As a trial lawyer with over 50 years of experience in state and federal courts in California and Utah, I join voices in opposition to the proposed rule change to Rule 56. There is nothing wrong with the current rule. Judges seem to exercise appropriate discretion in not allowing the motions to go forward without adequate discovery and not impeding them when adequate discovery has been accomplished.
Allowing wider discretion in the timing of motions for summary judgment would have the effect of postponing trial settings or interfering with trial settings.
I too oppose this change. Summary judgment motions should be filed within 30 to 45 days after the close of expert discovery and no later. Summary judgment should be sought as early as possible so as to avoid delay of trial and save the parties costs and fees.
I am in favor of motions for summary judgment being dependent upon the close of discovery. That’s clear and it makes sense to have a bright-line rule in this case.
I think this proposed rule change is problematic and will further prolong litigation and cases. Allowing the changes to go forward will have impact of delaying the case and possibly upending trial dates. The goal of URCP is to further the just and speedy resolution of cases. Allowing a party to file a late MSJ will encourage gamemanship and delay tactics. This proposal seems to be a solution in search of a problem that does not exist. There is no reason why a party should not be able to file an MSJ shortly after the close of fact discovery.