Opinion ID: 2518281
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of Defendants' Conduct Contained in the Knighton Affidavit Is Admissible

Text: ¶ 31 Cabaness argues that the district court erred when it determined that the majority of the allegations made by Mr. Knighton [in his affidavit] are conclusory and therefore inadmissible. A district court's refusal to consider evidence or to exclude evidence is reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard. Daines v. Vincent, 2008 UT 51, ¶ 21, 190 P.3d 1269 (With regard to our review of the exclusion of evidence, we grant a trial court broad discretion to admit or exclude evidence and will disturb its ruling only for abuse of discretion.). ¶ 32 The district court found that the majority of the allegations made by Mr. Knighton are conclusory and insufficient to support a finding that Mr. Thomas engaged in the requisite extreme and outrageous conduct necessary to constitute a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Although we agree that by itself Mr. Knighton's affidavit does not suffice to prove intentional infliction of emotional distress, we disagree that all of the evidence therein is inadmissible. ¶ 33 Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. Utah R. Civ. P. 56(e). Affidavits reflecting an affiant's unsubstantiated conclusions and opinions are inadmissible. See Murdock v. Springville Mun. Corp., 1999 UT 39, ¶ 26, 982 P.2d 65. ¶ 34 While some of Mr. Knighton's statements are conclusory, most are based on personal knowledge and set forth admissible facts. Specifically, in relevant part, Mr. Knighton's affidavit asserts that on the day after Cabaness returned to work from a six to seven week leave of absence for work-related depression, Mr. Knighton was present in a meeting where Thomas criticized Cabaness about personal matters. Additionally, Mr. Knighton claims Mr. Thomas said, in the presence of the other employees, that he was considering firing Cabaness. These assertions are purely factual and nonconclusory, and therefore admissible. The district court abused its discretion by failing to consider these assertions as evidence of Thomas' conduct.