"The purpose of discovery is to promote the ascertainment of truth and the ultimate disposition of the lawsuit in accordance therewith. Discovery fulfills this purpose by assuring the mutual knowledge of all relevant facts gathered by both parties which are essential to proper litigation." (See USAA Cas. Inc. Co. v Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (2019) No. OP 19-0139, 396 Mont. 547, 449 P.3d 793; Henderson v. Mont. Third Judicial Dist., OP 22-0069, at *3 (Mont. Feb. 15, 2022); Massaro v. Dunham (1979) 184 Mont. 400, 405, 603 P.2d 249, 252; Hickman v. Taylor (1947) 329 U.S. 495, 507, 67 S.Ct. 385, 392, 91 L.Ed. 451.)
“Discovery rules are to be liberally construed to make all relevant facts available to parties in advance of trial and to reduce the possibilities of surprise and unfair advantage." (See id; Cox v. Magers (2018) 390 Mont. 224, 229.)
“The methods by which discovery may be obtained, under the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure, are set out in Rule 26(a).” (See Jaap v. District Court (1981) 191 Mont. 319, 322.)
“Parties may obtain discovery of any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party's claim or defense.” (See Schuster v. Yellowstone Cnty. (2014) 347 P.3d 264; M.R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).)
“It is not ground for objection that the information sought will be inadmissible at the trial if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” (See Prindel v. Ravalli County (2006) 331 Mont. 338, 360.)
“A district court must limit the extent of discovery when it determines that the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” (See Schuster v. Yellowstone Cnty. (2014) 347 P.3d 264; M.R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii).)
"[W]hile parties do possess a broad discovery right, their requests must be narrowly tailored to lead to discoverable information, and the district courts may well need to prohibit discovery requests which are too broad, given the particular claims and defenses of each case." (See Edwards v. Turley Dental Care, P.C. (2023) 2023 MT 215, 10.)
Rule 26(c) of the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure governs protective orders.
“A party or any person from whom discovery is sought may move for a protective order in the court where the action is pending -- or as an alternative on matters relating to a deposition, in the court for the district where the deposition will be taken.” (See M.R. Civ. P. 26(c).)
“The motion must include a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action. The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense…” (See id.)
“We review a district court's ruling on a discovery matter, including the grant or denial of a protective order, for an abuse of discretion.” (See Kelly v. Camp (2022) MT 60, 9; In re S.C. (2005) MT 241, ¶¶ 16, 18, 328 Mont. 476, 121 P.3d 552.)
“The party claiming error in the district court's discovery rulings must show prejudice. We will reverse these discretionary rulings only when the court's judgment may materially affect the substantial rights of the complaining party and allow the possibility of a miscarriage of justice." (See Henricksen v. State (2004) 319 Mont. 307, 317; Anderson v. Werner Enterprises (1998) 292 Mont. 284, 287.)
“The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court acted arbitrarily without employment of conscientious judgment or exceeded the bounds of reason resulting in substantial injustice.” (See Tripp v. Jeld-Wen, Inc. (2005) 327 Mont. 146, 149; Jarvenpaa v. Glacier Electric Co-op (1998) 292 Mont. 118, 121.)
It is well settled that “compliance with discovery rules and orders is essential to the efficient and fundamentally fair administration of justice on the merits.” (See Mont. State Univ.-Bozeman v. Mont. First Judicial Dist. Court (2018) 392 Mont. 458, 468.)
It is also well settled that “a district court may enter sanctions against a party who fails to comply with a discovery order, including staying proceedings until the order is obeyed or dismissing the action or proceeding in whole or part.” (See In re M.B. (2018) 392 Mont. 368, 372.)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
