Opinion ID: 2639394
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Smith Charges Answers to Interrogatories Were Incomplete

Text: ¶ 18 Finally, Smith argues that summary judgment was premature because he was not able to complete discovery prior to the district court's decision to grant summary judgment. He specifically argues that by failing to completely answer his interrogatories, Four Corners hampered his ability to demonstrate the existence of material facts. Four Corners argues that this claim was not properly preserved below because Smith failed to move the district court to compel Four Corners to fully answer the interrogatories or to make a rule 56(f) motion to allow for additional discovery. ¶ 19 We will not address any new arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Treff v. Hinckley, 2001 UT 50, ¶ 9 n. 4, 26 P.3d 212; see also Ong Int'l (U.S.A.), Inc. v. 11th Ave. Corp., 850 P.2d 447, 455 (Utah 1993) (`With limited exceptions, the practice of this court has been to decline consideration of issues raised for the first time on appeal.' (citation omitted)). Smith claims that he first raised this issue in his Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. [7] Despite a close review of both this document and the oral argument before the district court, we are unable to discover any evidence that this issue was ever brought before the court below. Because this issue has been raised for the first time on appeal, it is not properly before us. Therefore, we will not address it. ¶ 20 Since each of Smith's procedural arguments fails, we now turn to discuss whether the district court properly granted summary judgment on the theories of governmental immunity and failure to timely comply with the UHCMA.