Question 1

Utah has no motion to compel, so what do I file instead?

Accepted Answer

A statement of discovery issues under Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a). The rule's own Advisory Committee note puts it plainly: statements of discovery issues replace discovery motions, and paragraph (a) governs unless the judge orders otherwise. The phrase motion to compel does not appear in the operative text at all, so a filing captioned that way is using vocabulary the Utah rules abandoned. Rule 37(a)(1) is written as an omnibus route rather than a single-purpose motion: a party, or the person from whom discovery is sought, may request that the judge enter an order regarding any discovery issue, and the rule lists failure to disclose under Rule 26, extraordinary discovery under Rule 26, a subpoena under Rule 45, protection from discovery, and compelling discovery from a party who fails to make full and complete disclosure. Note the consequence of that breadth: the same paper the other side would use to resist discovery is the paper you use to obtain it, so identify at the top which limb of 37(a)(1) you are invoking.

Question 2

Which five things must a Utah statement of discovery issues contain, and does the order matter?

Accepted Answer

The order matters, because Rule 37(a)(2) says the statement must include them in the following order. First, the relief sought and the grounds for the relief sought, stated succinctly and with particularity. Second, a certification that the requesting party has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with the other affected parties in person or by telephone in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. Third, a statement addressing proportionality under Rule 26(b)(3). Fourth, where extraordinary discovery is sought, a certification that the party has reviewed and approved a discovery budget. Fifth, the certification of service required by Rule 45(e)(4). Two drafting consequences follow from the cap of four pages or 1,500 words. The grounds have to be stated with particularity in very little space, which usually means naming the specific request and the specific deficiency rather than characterising the dispute. And the proportionality statement is not optional padding: it is a required content, so a statement that omits it does not comply with the rule.

Question 3

How long can my Utah statement of discovery issues be, and what may I attach?

Accepted Answer

No more than four pages or 1,500 words, not including permitted attachments, under Rule 37(a)(2). The word count was added by the amendment effective 1 November 2026, so guidance written earlier describes only the page limit. Attachments are tightly limited too, and this is the part that most often forces a rewrite: Rule 37(a)(4) permits only a copy of the disclosure, request for discovery, or the response at issue. That means no correspondence, no exhibit bundle and no separate memorandum, so the record of your conferral lives inside the certification rather than in an attached letter. Rule 37(a)(5) then requires each side to file a proposed order concurrently with its statement or objection, which is worth drafting early because it forces you to articulate exactly what you want the judge to sign. The practical effect of the whole design is that a Utah discovery dispute is presented on a few pages by each side plus two proposed orders, and nothing else.

Question 4

The other side objected to my Utah statement. How long do they have, and do I get a reply?

Accepted Answer

Seven days, and no reply. Rule 37(a)(3) provides that no more than seven days after the statement is filed, any other party may file an objection, that the objection is subject to the same four-page limit, and that it must address the issues raised in the statement. There is no provision for a reply, which is a deliberate feature of a design built for speed rather than for briefing. Rule 37(a)(6) then controls how the dispute reaches a judge: it goes up on a request to submit for decision under Rule 7(g), and the court may decide it on the papers, or hold a hearing, which the rule says should preferably be remote, or order further briefing if it wants more. Two timing points worth diarising. The seven days is the only clock inside Rule 37 and it runs against the objector rather than against you. And Rule 37(a)(9) provides that the statement does not suspend or toll the time to complete standard discovery, so your discovery period keeps shrinking while the dispute is pending.

Question 5

Can I ask for sanctions in a Utah statement of discovery issues?

Accepted Answer

No, and the rule says so under its own heading. Rule 37(a)(8), captioned request for sanctions prohibited, provides that a statement of discovery issues or an objection may include a request for costs, expenses and attorney fees but not a request for sanctions. That is a real structural divide rather than a drafting nicety. Sanctions sit in Rule 37(b), which operates on a motion once the court has made an order and the order has not been obeyed, and conflating the two is the easiest error to make on this instrument. So the sequence in Utah is: file the statement, obtain an order, and only if the order is disobeyed does the sanctions motion become available. What you can ask for now is money for the dispute itself, under Rule 37(a)(7)(K). If what you actually want is an adverse inference, a claim struck or a default, that relief is not available on this paper and asking for it signals that the filing was drafted from another state's rule.

Question 6

My Utah case claims under $50,000. Do I have interrogatories to compel at all?

Accepted Answer

Probably none, and that is the first thing to check before drafting anything. Utah sets standard discovery by damages tier in Rule 26(c), and the limits are counted per side, meaning plaintiffs collectively and defendants collectively, including all discrete subparts. Rule 26(c)(3) defines the tiers: actions claiming $50,000 or less in damages get Tier 1 standard discovery, actions claiming more than $50,000 and less than $300,000 get Tier 2, and actions claiming $300,000 or more get Tier 3. In a Tier 1 action the permitted number of Rule 33 interrogatories is zero. So in a small Utah case there is usually nothing to compel under Rule 33, because no interrogatories were available as standard discovery in the first place, and a dispute about them is really a dispute about whether extraordinary discovery should be allowed. Extraordinary discovery is its own route under Rule 26(c)(6), and if you seek it the statement must carry the discovery-budget certification described above.

Question 7

If the judge gives me the order I asked for, will Utah make the other side pay my fees?

Accepted Answer

Not automatically, and Utah is more demanding here than the federal rule a reader may be expecting. Rule 37(a)(7)(K) is one item on a menu of orders the court may enter, and the verb governing the whole menu is may. The fee is also conditional rather than subject to an exception: it is available only if the court finds that the party, witness, or attorney did not act in good faith or asserted a position that was not substantially justified. So winning the order is not the trigger; a finding about conduct is. Three further details shape what to ask for. The award is symmetrical as to outcome, because it is available whether the relief requested is granted or denied, so a thin statement exposes the party who filed it. It survives capitulation, being available where a party provides discovery or withdraws a request after the statement was filed. And on the text it runs against a party, even though the bad-faith finding may be made about a party, a witness or an attorney.

Question 8

My Utah requests for admission went unanswered. Is that a statement of discovery issues?

Accepted Answer

No, and there is nothing to file. Rule 36(c)(1) gives 28 days after service of the request, and if that window passes the matter is admitted automatically. The admission happens by operation of the rule rather than by an order, so a statement of discovery issues would be asking the judge to compel something that has already taken effect. Two things follow. The requests-for-admission deadline is the most consequential one in a Utah case, because missing it concedes the matters rather than merely delaying them, and the remedy afterwards is to seek relief from the admission rather than to compel an answer. And if an answer was served but you think it is inadequate, you are in a different position: that is a dispute about the sufficiency of a response, which does go to Rule 37(a) as a discovery issue. So establish first whether anything came back at all. Note the same uniform 28-day period governs interrogatories under Rule 33(b) and requests for production under Rule 34(b)(2).

Utah Motion to Compel

Find out where you stand in Utah

Introduction

Key Things to Know

Key decisions before you file

Customize your Motion to Compel Template with DocDraft

Utah Requirements for Motion to Compel

The Relief Sought and Its Grounds, Stated With Particularity

A Conferral Certification, In Person or By Telephone

A Proportionality Statement Under Rule 26(b)(3)

A Discovery Budget Certification, Where Extraordinary Discovery Is Sought

The Rule 45(e)(4) Certificate of Service

The Length Cap and the One Permitted Attachment

A Costs Request, But Not a Sanctions Request

Proof the 28 Days Has Run, and That the Matter Is Not Already Admitted

Frequently Asked Questions