Salo v. Tyler

Summary

The Utah Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for University of Utah Hospital pharmacy administrators sued for defamation and interference with economic relations after communications concerning alleged off-label promotion of a drug contributed to the plaintiff’s termination by Amgen. The court clarified that Utah’s summary-judgment standard follows Celotex and held that the defendants’ conduct occurred within the scope of their employment under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act. The court also upheld denial of a motion to strike an affidavit because the plaintiff was not prejudiced by the witness-disclosure issue.

Holdings

1. Utah's summary judgment standard is consistent with the federal standard in Celotex Corp. v. Catrett. The moving party always bears the burden of showing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, but when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof at trial, the movant may satisfy its burden of persuasion by showing that the nonmoving party lacks evidence supporting an essential element, without producing affirmative evidence of its own.
2. The defendants acted within the scope of their employment because investigating alleged off-label promotion was of the general kind of work they were employed to perform, was directed toward protecting the hospital's interests, and was not a personal endeavor.
3. Salo failed to create a genuine issue of material fact concerning willful misconduct because he presented no evidence that the defendants intentionally committed a wrongful act while knowing that their statements were false. Evidence that the defendants knew their statements might harm Salo or held ill will toward him was insufficient.
4. The district court acted within its discretion in denying Salo's motion to strike Tyler's affidavit because Tyler had appeared on earlier witness lists, discovery had been completed, Salo had deposed her, and the omission from the final disclosure caused no prejudice.

Questions Presented

1. What summary judgment standard applies under Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 56 when the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof at trial?
2. Whether the defendants' conduct occurred within the scope of their employment under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act.
3. Whether Salo produced evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact as to willful misconduct under the Utah Governmental Immunity Act.
4. Whether the district court abused its discretion by considering Linda Tyler's affidavit despite her omission from the defendants' final Rule 26(a) witness disclosure.

Disposition

affirmed