Opinion ID: 2602055
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: does the district court have authority to require an autopsy in every asbestos-related case?

Text: ¶17 Mrs. Kirkham and Mrs. Kilpatrick challenge the district court's authority to enforce the autopsy requirement. Bullough and BNSF argue that the challenge to the autopsy requirement is untimely because it was not preserved in district court and because Brayton Purcell waived the right to challenge the CMO by participating in its creation and by endorsing the CMO in its entirety in other communications with the court. ¶18 We will not address the argument that the district court did not have authority to enforce the autopsy requirement because it was not raised before the district court. Any challenge to the merits of a discovery request must be timely filed and put before the trial court, or the claim will be waived. [17] ¶19 Plaintiffs have not provided any record citations to support their assertion that they challenged the autopsy requirement before the district court. In contrast, defendants have pointed out several occasions when Brayton Purcell urged the district court not to approve amendments to the CMO because amendments would upset the negotiated compromises agreed to by the parties. For example, in a February 14, 2003 memorandum in opposition to a motion to amend the CMO, Brayton Purcell referenced the autopsy provision and explicitly requested that the court not change it. Brayton Purcell concluded the memo by explaining that it is the plaintiffs' position that the CMO and its amendments have been exhaustively discussed. As part of these discussions there has been much give-and-take and compromise. . . . [I]t was felt that without such compromises, there would be no case management order . . . . ¶20 Rule 24(a)(5)(A) of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that parties demonstrate preservation of an issue by providing a citation to the record showing that the issue was presented to the district court. Rule 24(a)(7) requires that [a]ll statements of fact and references to the proceedings below shall be supported by citations to the record. We have made it clear that [t]his court need not, and will not, consider any facts not properly cited to, or supported by, the record. [18] Nor will we entertain issues raised for the first time on appeal absent exceptional circumstances. [19] Because the plaintiffs either failed to challenge the autopsy provision before the district court, or failed to provide to this court a record citation to their challenge, we will not address their argument.