ARM 24.5.326

Atchley v. Louisiana Pacific Corp. [3/9/15] 2015 MTWCC 3 Appropriate sanctions were warranted where Petitioner failed to produce a key document in response to Respondent’s request for production and after the Court ordered her to produce it, including: (1) the Court granting Respondent’s motion to extend the scheduling deadlines to allow it reasonable time to investigate the withheld document; (2) the Court allowing Respondent to supplement its exhibit list; (3) the Court considering and ruling on any pretrial motions regarding the withheld document; (4) the Court permitting the reconvening of Petitioner’s expert’s deposition in order to question him regarding the withheld document; (5) the Court requiring Petitioner to pay all expenses and Respondent’s reasonable costs incurred in reconvening the expert’s deposition; and (6) the Court vacating the current trial setting.

Atchley v. Louisiana Pacific Corp. [3/9/15] 2015 MTWCC 3 Where Petitioner failed to produce one document out of hundreds of pages of exhibits, and Respondent was put on notice prior to deposing Petitioner’s expert that the expert relied on a USFS document in concluding that Respondent’s mill processed contaminated lumber, dismissal of the case or limiting Petitioner’s proof that Respondent’s mill processed contaminated lumber was too severe a sanction.
Re: John David Miller - The St. Paul Travelers Companies Inc. v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Co. [10/26/07] 2007 MTWCC 44 The Court awarded sanctions pursuant to ARM 24.5.326 in the form of attorney fees and costs where Respondent objected to or provided incomplete responses to Petitioner’s requests for production and interrogatory regarding a complete claims file, including, but not limited to all claims correspondence, claims adjusting notes, and communications with and between Respondent’s medical director. The Court found Respondent’s assertion that the requests were irrelevant and not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence to be unreasonable.

State Compensation Insurance Fund v. Montana Sign, Skinner Enterprises, Lifestyle Homes and Andy Skinner [11/24/99]1999 MTWCC 74, 74A Where subparts contained within interrogatories merely specify the information needed to answer the interrogatory, they should not be counted as separate interrogatories for purposes of determining whether the number of interrogatories exceeded the Court's limitation of 20 interrogatories (ARM 24.5.323(6)).

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.