Discovery: Depositions: Generally

Taves v. AIU Insurance Company [11/30/99] 1999 MTWCC 76 Where insurance counsel moved to compel claimant to appear at a resumed deposition, WCC considered the fact that said counsel had rejected the suggestion of claimant's counsel to contact the WCC during deposition for resolution of the dispute, rather than to terminate the deposition. The deposition was not ordered resumed where the questions giving rise to the dispute were not reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence and insurance counsel unilaterally chose to terminate the deposition rather than seek an immediate ruling.

Tuma v. Connecticut Indemnity Co. [10/16/96] 1996 MTWCC 96 Date for deposition of physician (and trial date) vacated where claimant had resisted production of certain medical records that were potentially relevant to cross-examination of physician and WCC granted motion to compel production of such documents. It was not likely discovery could be completed prior to deposition or trial dates.

Stone v. State Fund [8/1/96] 1996 MTWCC 57 Insurer moved to vacate trial and compel deposition of pro se claimant who told insurer, "I, will give no deposition, under oath, or otherwise." ARM 24.5.326 allows sanctions for failure to make discover. Motion to vacate trial date and compel discovery is granted. Claimant is cautioned that failure to submit to deposition may result in dismissal of petition with prejudice.