Willis v. Adams & Smith, Inc., 2019 UT App 84 (May 16, 2019)
The defendant argued that the testimony of plaintiffs’ non-retained expert on the issue of valuation should have been excluded at trial because the expert was not properly disclosed under Utah R. Civ. P. 26(a)(4)(E). In rejecting this argument, the court of appeals noted that the plaintiffs had listed the witness in their initial disclosures as a fact witness likely to testify on valuation, attached a summary of his valuations and supporting documentation to the initial disclosures, and further described his methodology in response to an interrogatory. The court held that these steps, taken together, provided “fair notice” of the plaintiffs’ intent to call the witness as a non-retained expert and satisfied Rule 26(a)(4)(E).