Utah Expert Witness Rules: What Litigators Need to Know

Utah’s approach to expert witnesses is defined by a relatively structured set of procedural and evidentiary rules, rooted in its Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of Evidence. Expert testimony is frequently pivotal in civil litigation, especially in medical malpractice, product liability, and complex commercial disputes. Attorneys practicing in Utah must adhere to court-ordered deadlines, provide detailed disclosures, and prepare experts to survive Daubert-style admissibility challenges.

Designation Requirements

Expert witness designation in Utah is governed primarily by Utah Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(4). Unlike jurisdictions where expert identity is disclosed informally, Utah requires a formal designation of testifying experts with specific content requirements.

Parties must disclose:

• The expert’s name and contact information
• The subject matter of the expected testimony
• A summary of the opinions to be offered
• The basis for each opinion, including data and methodology
• The expert’s qualifications, including a resume or CV
• Compensation arrangements

These designations must be served on all parties, not filed with the court, and must strictly comply with Rule 26 or risk preclusion under Rule 37(h) for failure to disclose timely or sufficiently.

Expert Disclosure Process

Utah uses a tiered case management system, and the timing of expert disclosures varies by the tier assigned to the case:

• Tier 1 cases (claims ≤ $50,000): Expert discovery is limited, and summaries—not full reports—are typically required.
• Tier 2 and Tier 3 cases: Broader expert discovery is permitted, and more detailed summaries or reports are expected.

Under Rule 26(a)(4)(A), the expert disclosure must include:

• The expert’s opinions and the basis for those opinions
• The facts and data considered
• A summary of the expert’s expected testimony

In cases involving retained experts, Utah courts often expect formal written reports, particularly when the expert is offering complex scientific, medical, or technical opinions. Depositions of experts are permitted under Rule 30, but may be limited in Tier 1 cases to control discovery costs.

Required Declarations

While declarations are not required as part of expert designation under Rule 26, they are often critical at the summary judgment stage or in Daubert-related motions.

Under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e), declarations or affidavits from experts are necessary to:

• Establish a genuine issue of material fact
• Demonstrate that the expert is qualified and competent
• Support or oppose motions for summary judgment

Such declarations must be made under oath and based on personal knowledge, and must set forth facts that would be admissible in evidence at trial.

In medical malpractice cases, plaintiffs are no longer required to file a statutory certificate of merit, but courts still expect expert support early in litigation to sustain claims against dismissal.

Fees and Compensation

Expert compensation in Utah is governed by both private contract and procedural rules. Under Rule 26(b)(4)(C):

• The party deposing an expert must pay the expert a reasonable fee for the time spent preparing for and attending the deposition.
• If a party seeks an expert’s file or report, they may be required to reimburse reasonable expenses incurred in producing it.

Disputes over what constitutes a “reasonable fee” can be resolved by the court. Factors considered include the expert’s typical billing rate, time involved, and the complexity of the subject matter.

Discovery Scope and Limitations

Utah permits expert discovery that is broader in Tier 2 and Tier 3 cases, while more limited in Tier 1 to promote proportionality. Under Rule 26(b)(4):

• Testifying experts are fully discoverable, including their opinions, bases, and materials considered
• Parties may serve interrogatories, requests for production, and conduct depositions
• Disclosure must include any facts, data, or assumptions provided by counsel

Discovery of non-testifying or consulting experts is prohibited unless exceptional circumstances exist, such as where the opposing party cannot obtain the information through other means.

Draft expert reports and attorney-expert communications are generally protected under Utah’s work-product doctrine, unless they contain factual materials reviewed or relied upon by the expert.

Admissibility Standards

Utah courts apply a Daubert-style standard, codified in Utah Rule of Evidence 702 and clarified by state case law. The rule requires that expert testimony must:

1. Be provided by a qualified expert
2. Be based on reliable principles and methods
3. Be helpful to the trier of fact
4. Reflect the reliable application of those methods to the facts of the case

In State v. Rimmasch, 775 P.2d 388 (Utah 1989),** the Utah Supreme Court adopted an approach closely aligned with Daubert, requiring trial courts to ensure expert opinions are scientifically valid and methodologically sound.

Trial judges act as gatekeepers, and they may hold Rule 104 hearings to assess reliability. The burden rests with the party offering the expert to establish admissibility by a preponderance of the evidence.

Key Deadlines & Strategy Notes

Deadlines for expert disclosures in Utah vary based on case tier and scheduling orders:

• Tier 1: Expert disclosures typically due 90–120 days before trial
• Tier 2 and Tier 3: May include staggered deadlines for initial, rebuttal, and supplemental experts
• Pretrial motions, including motions to exclude expert testimony, are due as specified in the court’s pretrial order

Missing disclosure deadlines or failing to provide adequate summaries can result in exclusion under Rule 37(h), even absent bad faith. Practitioners should confirm deadlines in the Notice of Tier Assignment and consult with the assigned judge for specific scheduling expectations.

State-Specific Statutes & Local Rules

• Utah R. Civ. P. 26(a)(4): Governs expert disclosure requirements
• Utah R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4): Regulates discovery of expert witnesses
• Utah R. Civ. P. 37(h): Provides for sanctions, including preclusion
• Utah R. Evid. 702: Adopts Daubert-style admissibility standards
• State v. Rimmasch, 775 P.2d 388 (Utah 1989): Sets foundational reliability test

Attorneys must also monitor judicial district-specific practices, as individual judges may impose additional requirements through case management orders or pretrial conference memoranda.