| ARM 24.5.323(6) State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Montana Sign, Skinner Enterprises, Lifestyle Homes and Andy Skinner [11/24/99]1999 MTWCC 74, 74A Discovery sanctions were awarded under ARM 24.5.326 because respondent stonewalled, provided no discovery at all, and objected by rote without consideration of individual discovery requests. Sanctions were withdrawn sue sponte, however, because the Court failed to provide respondent with a hearing prior to awarding sanctions. A hearing for that purpose was calendared. |
| StateFund v. Montana Sign, Skinner Enterprises, Lifestyle Homes and Andy Skinner [11/24/99]1999 MTWCC 74, 74A Discovery sanctions were awarded under ARM 24.5.326 because respondent stonewalled, provided no discovery at all, and objected by rote without consideration of individual discovery requests. Sanctions were withdrawn sue sponte, however, because the Court failed to provide respondent with a hearing prior to awarding sanctions. A hearing for that purpose was calendared. |
| King v. State Fund [5/4/98] 1998 MTWCC 36 Although the M.R.Civ.P. provide that a request for admission is deemed admitted if not denied in thirty days, the WCC rules do not contain such a provision. Rather, the WCC rules treat a request for admission as a form of interrogatory, meaning that the WCC rules for compelling answers to interrogatories, and requesting sanctions where appropriate, govern the issue of remedy for respondent's late answers to a request to admit. |
| Sears v. Travelers Ins. [1/13/97] 1997 MTWCC 2 Where more than 20 days have elapsed since service of respondent's interrogatories, and petition has made no request for an extension of time in which to answer, the WCC orders that answers be provided. |