Salo v Tyler, Choudhary and Vu

Salo appealed summary judgment on his defamation and other claims and his motion to strike Tyler’s affidavit. The Court affirmed. It held that Utah’s summary judgment standard is the same as the federal standard of assigning the burden of persuasion to the party that bears the burden at trial and repudiated any language in the Court’s precedent which indicates otherwise; that the federal standard is consistent with the language of Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) and the negative implication of Rule of Civil Procedure 50 standard for directed verdict; that the district court properly required Salo to meet his burden of proof at the summary judgment stage even though he did not move for summary judgment; that investigations into misconduct by vendors was in the general kind of work Choudhary and Vu performed as pharmacists employed by the University of Utah pharmacy; and Salo failed to provide evidence to prove Choudhary or Vu knew the statements they made to Salo’s employer and University officials were false. It affirmed the denial of the motion to strike for lack of prejudice as Tyler was listed as a witness until her motion for summary judgment was granted and Salo was able to depose Tyler.