Evidence: Objections - Timeliness





Nease v. Montana Contractor Compensation Fund [08/14/13] 2013 MTWCC 20 Where Respondent represented that it had not obtained any law enforcement records and that it did not intend to call any law enforcement officers to testify, Petitioner’s motion in limine to exclude the law enforcement testimony and related law enforcement records was premature. 

Martin v. Montana State Fund [08/26/11] 2011 MTWCC 25 Where Petitioner had known for some time that his employer did not recall with certainty the date of Petitioner’s initial employment, he had ample time prior to trial to supplement the record with tax records proving that he had worked for the employer longer than the employer recalled.  Since he had ample notice that his employer did not accurately recall his date of hire, he had ample opportunity to submit his tax form as an exhibit and his motion to supplement the record was denied.

Bjorgum v. Montana State Fund [12/30/11] 2011 MTWCC 29 Under M. R. Evid. 103(a)(1), an objection is timely if it is made as soon as its grounds become apparent. Petitioner’s objection was not timely where he did not make it until after the close of evidence nearly two weeks later.

State Fund v. Carl Murray [4/6/04] 2004 MTWCC 33 An objection to medical records and other documents authored by a medical provider must be made within the time provided in Rule 24.5.317 and the scheduling order whether or not the record or document fits within the meaning of a business record under Rule 803(6), Mont. R. Evid. Affirmed Montana State Fund v. Murray, 2005 MT 97