Plaintiff's expert witness in order to sanction Plaintiff for noncompliance with a scheduling order. We note, however, that the reasons for the trial court’s sanction would seem to disappear on remand. 2 . At oral argument, Defendant raised for the first time the issue of waiver, claiming Plaintiff did not adequately object to Instruction No. 17 and therefore cannot now complain about its insufficiency. Pursuant to our rules of civil procedure, "[n]o party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto. In objecting to the giving of an instruction, a party must state distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds for his objection.” Utah R.Civ.P. 51; see also Shurtleff v. Jay Tuft & Co., 622 P.2d 1168, 1175 (Utah 1980) (<HOLDING>); Van-Dyke v. Mountain Coin Mach. Distribs.,
holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error holding that where the appellant has failed to demonstrate error the court is not required to search the record for an error holding defendants assignment of error failed because in taking exception to instruction defendant had not specified claimed error holding that instruction that omitted elements of crime that defense had conceded was error although not plain error holding that failure to request jury instruction about manner in which evidence was obtained was not error and thus did not constitute ineffective assistance because defendant was not entitled to instruction