Background
Jerry Gallegos suffered a permanent shoulder injury after a Brewski’s bouncer put him in a full-nelson hold, carried or dragged him toward the door, and pushed him outside. Police viewed the bar’s security footage that night and told a manager to preserve it. Gallegos also sent preservation letters, but the system recorded over the footage. The district court imposed an adverse-inference sanction against Brewski’s.
Discovery produced a second sanctions dispute. Gallegos’s designated security expert arrived unprepared for his deposition, and counsel ended the examination over opposing counsel’s objection. The court excluded that expert. It later granted Brewski’s summary judgment, reasoning that without expert testimony Gallegos could not establish either ordinary negligence or negligent hiring, training, and supervision.
The Court’s Holding
The appellate court affirmed both sanctions. The missing video was not equivalent to body-camera footage showing a police officer watching the recording, and Brewski’s had notice of a preservation duty. Excluding the unprepared expert was proportionate given the willful termination of the deposition and resulting prejudice. The court also allowed Brewski’s late summary-judgment motion because the expert’s exclusion created the basis for it after the ordinary deadline.
But the court reversed summary judgment. A majority held jurors can use ordinary experience to decide whether the force used to remove Gallegos was reasonable, so expert testimony was not indispensable to the vicarious-negligence claim. Binding Utah precedent also foreclosed a categorical expert requirement for negligent hiring and supervision. The case returns for trial-level proceedings on both theories.
Key Takeaways
- Businesses must preserve incident video once litigation is reasonably anticipated, even when a recording system automatically overwrites files.
- Expert exclusion may be justified when a witness is unprepared and counsel unilaterally terminates the deposition.
- Utah negligence claims do not require expert testimony when ordinary jurors can evaluate the reasonableness of the conduct.
Why It Matters
The decision gives Utah premises-liability lawyers a practical roadmap for video preservation, discovery sanctions, and expert-necessity disputes. Plaintiffs should build alternative fact proof rather than assume an expert is essential, while businesses should issue immediate litigation holds for surveillance footage. On remand, the parties may litigate the reasonableness of the bouncer’s force and the bar’s hiring and supervision without the excluded expert.