Ford v. Ford, 2016 UT App 127, A.K.A., Don’t Mess with Discovery

Ah, discovery. To borrow from A Tale of Two Cities, discovery is the best of times and the worst of times.

Personally, I love discovery. I love it because I’m a divorce attorney, so everyone lies to me all the time. Discovery is a great way to tease out the lies and gather evidence to prove the lies.

Discovery is also a pain. It can take a long time to complete and end up being expensive (usually because the other side refuses to answer or provides really obviously inadequate answers).

On the whole, discovery is a necessary tool that we should use regularly during litigation.

When it comes to divorce attorneys, I am in the minority on this. Most divorce attorneys don’t engage in discovery beyond putting together a financial declaration, and, maybe, maybe, putting together initial disclosures, which are all of two pages.

This lack of experience with discovery can lead to some pretty bad situations in divorce and child custody cases. A prime example of such a situation is Ford v. Ford, the latest divorce case from the Utah Court of Appeals.

Facts

The facts are pretty straightforward.

In 2012, Paul Ford filed a motion to adjust the child support, parent-time, and property distribution, all of which resulted from a 2008 divorce from Traci Ford. Traci filed a motion for order to show cause for unpaid child support.

No hearing took place until June 2014. Before the hearing, but after the normal discovery period lapsed, Paul served Traci with discovery requests. Traci timely responded and sent Paul discovery requests. As the Court of Appeal put it: “[Paul] ignored [Traci]’s requests.”

Bad idea.

Traci followed up with Paul, providing him additional time to respond, and letting him know if he did not, she would file a motion under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 37 asking that his pleadings be stricken as sanction. Paul ignored the letter.

Bad idea.

At the ensuing evidentiary hearing, the Judge addressed Traci’s motion to strike. Paul said he ignored Traci’s discovery (1) because she sent it after the discovery period had ended, and (2) because Traci sent twelve requests for admission instead of the ten allowed under the rules.

After a brief colloquy with Paul (or, more likely, Paul’s attorney) about his lack of discovery responses, the judge offered the following solution: continue the hearing if Paul would pay all attorney’s fees incurred trying to get discovery and preparing for the evidentiary hearing. Paul declined the solution.

Bad idea.

The judge struck Paul’s petition to modify in total and heard evidence on Traci’s order to show cause. The judge also deemed admitted all of Traci’s requests for admission Paul decided not to answer.

Analysis

Paul appealed the District Court’s decision, asserting: (1) the District Court erred by requiring him to respond to Traci’s discovery requests, and (2) the District Court’s sanction was overly harsh.

Too Many Requests for Admission

The Court of Appeals began by noting discovery decisions are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard (never good if you want to overturn a court’s ruling). In fact, the Court of Appeals reiterated the standard that it would only overturn District Court discovery sanctions “only in cases evidencing a clear abuse of discretion.”

In addressing Paul’s first argument (he didn’t need to respond to Traci’s discovery requests because she included twelve requests for admission instead of the ten allowed under Rule 26), the Court of Appeals noted Rule 36 obligates parties to respond within twenty-eight days. If a party does not, the matter is admitted. Parties who do not respond “do so at their own peril.”

So, the District Court could not have refused to deem admitted the unresponded to request for admission. It was obligated to deem them admitted. To get out from under the admissions, Paul would have had to file a motion, which he failed to do.

Bad idea.

Ultimately, the District Court was well within its authority to strike Paul’s pleadings.

Too Harsh

Paul’s second and final argument (the District Court’s sanction was unduly harsh) fared no better than his first.

Under Rule 37, the District Court has a myriad of potential sanctions at its disposal, including striking pleadings. And “failure to respond in the appropriate time frame may subject the noncomplying party to sanctions under Rule 37.”

The Court of Appeals puts these two things together and, in essence, says the District Court can do what it wants and we’re not going to mess with it.

The Court then went on to make a particular finding that, under the circumstances, the District Court’s sanction was, in fact, not harsh. Even if it were, the Court reasoned, a “district court may impose a harsh sanction on a party and still not abuse its discretion.”

Takeaways

  1.  Running through the Court’s analysis is fact Paul propounded discovery and Traci responded. He refused to do likewise. Lesson: what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
  2.  Always answer discovery, and do it completely. When a court thinks you are messing around with discovery and hiding the ball, it will punish you, severely.

(Here’s the opinion: Ford v. Ford.pdf.)

Protect Your Money And Your Family

We remove fear associated with divorce, protect your money & maximize time with your kids!

We're here to help. Let's determine your best options.

Call Us 24//7 at 801-685-9999 to Speak with a Live Representative

Utah Divorce FAQs
Top 100 Divorce Blog
What Clients Are Saying…
BrownLaw icon
Excellent
Brown Family Law
4.8
Based on 918 reviews
Great support, Russell and Connor were amazing and got my case dismissed in only 2 months. Great communication with weekly calls. Easy to work with and were very conscious on not overspending my budget. Great team.
Response from the owner:Daniel, thank you for the kind words, and happy Russell and Connor did well for you.
Anne Greyson long was great to work with she really listens and fights for her clients thank you so much for all your hard work
Response from the owner:Thank you, Heather. Glad Anne-Greyson helped you so well.
You get what you pay for, and the Brown Family team is worth every penny. We truly appreciated their team-based approach, making sure that every detail of our case was thoughtfully handled. They were incredibly easy to work with, kept us informed throughout the process, and made sure no question ever went unanswered. By far the best family attorneys I’ve worked with, and the only ones I’ll call if I ever need legal help again.
Response from the owner:Chris, thank you. Glad we were able to guide you through your process.
Andrew made the whole process smooth and quick! Kept me updated on any changes, and followed up with me constantly!

Made me feel at ease throughout the whole process and made sure I felt seen/ heard!
Response from the owner:Joselyn, thank you for the kind words.
David Handy is my attorney and he is excellent. He understands my cases and is well informed to defend my needs and the needs of my kids. He is supportive and compassionate. Telling me how things are and what to expect. He does very well with my high conflict cases (protective order and divorce). I highly recommend him and the Brown Family Law firm. Everyone I have talked to is helpful. Especially Conor Schetzel who is currently the paralegal on my cases.
Response from the owner:Suzanne, thank you and glad David has taken care of you.
Nathaniel Garrabrandt and Brown Family Law is where I send people who are seeking Divorce. Highly professional and compassionate. Thank you!
Response from the owner:Jaren, thank you for the referrals.
I cannot say enough good about my experience with Brown Family Law. Ray Hingson and paralegal Carren did an excellent job with my case. I will definitely use this firm again for any legal issues.
Response from the owner:Meghann, so glad Ray and Carren took good care of you.
I have worked with Andrew Christensen many times in a variety of situations. I am very impressed with his friendly demeanor in a difficult situation. I would highly recommend him to you without any reservations.
Response from the owner:Thank you, Monica.
Highly recommend Brown Family Law. Life is hard, divorce is harder, and Andrew Christensen is your guy to help you through to the other side.
Response from the owner:Mike, thank you for the kind words and the referrals.
When you’re going through a tough time and need legal help, this firm isn’t just a one-person operation. It’s a team of attorneys who work together to support you every step of the way. So you’re not just getting a lawyer, you’re getting a legal team behind you.

Navigating the legal system was a steep learning curve for me, and my situation was fairly complex. What stood out about this law firm was the way multiple attorneys collaborated to address my case. It wasn’t just one person working in isolation, but a team supporting each other to find the best path forward. That kind of collective effort is a real strength, especially in hard out complex situations like mine.

There was one issue I felt should have had a different outcome with the court. When I brought it up, the team responded in a very professional and respectful manner, which I truly appreciated. It came to my understanding that the legal system sometimes works in a way that is distant than I thought. This was presented to me in a way that someone outside of the legal system could understand.

In my experience, this firm takes the time to not only assist you, but also help you understand why things are happening. That made a big difference for me, and it’s something that really sets them apart.
Response from the owner:David, thank you for our conversation and taking the time to leave this review.
yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7

Categories

Related Posts