Title: STATE EX REL GUAR INS v DISTRIC
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-346
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: October 14, 1981

No. 81-346 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981 STATE OF MONTANA, ex rel., GUARANTEE INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator, DISTRICT COURT OF THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT and HON. JOEL G. ROTH, and BOYD MAHAFFEY and NANCY MAHAFFEY, d/b/a MAHAFFEY TRUCKING, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel of Record: For Relator: Smith, Baillie & Walsh, Great Falls, Montana For Respondents: James, Gray & McCafferty, Great Falls, Montana 9CT 14 1 9 8 : Piled: . Submitted: September 17, 1981 Decided : & - 1 1 4 rh' M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s is an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l t o r e v i e w and r e v e r s e a District Court o r d e r denying relator's o b j e c t i o n s t o t w o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s by p l a i n t i f f and d i r e c t i n g r e l a t o r t o answer them w i t h i n 30 d a y s . On J a n u a r y 11, 1979, t h e complaint i n t h e underlying a c t i o n was f i l e d i n t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court of Cascade County. P l a i n t i f f w a s relator's i n s u r e d whose tractor and trailer were damaged i n an automobile a c c i d e n t . P l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e t w o claims a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t seeking compensatory and p u n i t i v e damages f o r a l l e g e d v i o l a t i o n s of t h e p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n s and s t a t e i n s u r a n c e s t a t u t e s i n c o n n e c t i o n with s e t t l e m e n t of t h e c o l l i s i o n loss. I n t h e c o u r s e of p r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y p l a i n t i f f s served i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s on d e f e n d a n t p u r s u a n t to Rule 33, M.R.Civ. P. The i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s involved i n t h e p r e s e n t c o n t r o v e r s y read as f o l l o w s : "INTERROGATORY NUMBER - 2: " P l e a s e state t h e number of total loss claims which were s e t t l e d by your company between J u l y 1, 1975, and J u l y 1, 1978, b y a d i r e c t payment from your company funds o n l y i n t h e amount of t h e i n s u r e d v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y less t h e s a l v a g e p r i c e and d e d u c t i b l e , and where t h e r e was a d i r e c t payment of t h e s a l v a g e p r i c e from t h e s a l v a g e p u r c h a s e r to t h e i n s u r e d ; and f o r e a c h such s e t t l e m e n t , p l e a s e state: " ( a ) The d a t e of t h e loss; " ( b ) The d a t e of t h e payment from your company; " ( c ) The d a t e of t h e payment from t h e s a l v a g e p u r c h a s e r ; " ( d ) The amount of t h e payment from your com- pany funds; " ( e ) The amount of t h e payment from t h e s a l v a g e p u r c h a s e r ; " ( f ) Whether s e t t l e m e n t s i n t h i s matter were i n accordance w i t h s t a n d a r d company pro- c e d u r e s or p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n s ; and i f so, p l e a s e i d e n t i f y any and a l l documentation which sets f o r t h t h i s s t a n d a r d company p r o c e d u r e and/or i d e n t i f y t h e p o l i c y p r o v i s i o n involved. " "INTERROGATORY NUMBER - 5: " P l e a s e i d e n t i f y i n a manner s u f f i c i e n t f o r a motion to produce, each and e v e r y w r i t i n g of whatever kind and n a t u r e which i n any way per- t a i n s t o t h e i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u e s t e d by I n t e r r o g a t o r y Number 2 above, i n c l u d i n g ( w i t h o u t need of s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e name of t h e insured i n v o l v e d ) t h e claim number and p o l i c y number.I1 P l a i n t i f f contended i n t h e District Court t h a t t h e s e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s are d i r e c t l y r e l e v a n t to t h e a l l e g a t i o n s s t a t e d i n t h e p l a i n t i f f s 1 c o m p l a i n t , have n o t been shown i n any manner to b e u n r e a s o n a b l y burdensome or v e x a t i o u s , and a r e t h e o n l y avenue b y which t h e p l a i n t i f f can c o l l e c t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n needed to p r o v e a r e g u l a r c o u r s e of b u s i n e s s conduct i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e Montana I n s u r a n c e Code. Defendant contended i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t t h e s e t w o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s are unduly annoying, o p p r e s s i v e , burdensome and e x p e n s i v e ; t h a t t h e y are o u t s i d e t h e scope of p e r m i s s i b l e d i s c o v e r y ; and t h a t t h e y are n o t r e a s o n a b l y c a l c u l a t e d to l e a d to t h e d i s c o - v e r y of a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e . Defendant f i l e d o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e s e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , r e q u e s t e d a h e a r i n g which was g r a n t e d , and f o l l o w i n g t h e h e a r i n g t h e District Court e n t e r e d an o r d e r d a t e d and f i l e d on May 26, 1981, t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n sought w a s d i s c o v e r a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n , d e n i e d r e l a t o r ' s o b j e c t i o n s , and allowed relator 30 d a y s i n which t o answer s a i d i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . On August 6 , 1981, r e l a t o r f i l e d i n t h i s Court its a p p l i - c a t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l r e q u e s t i n g us to a c c e p t j u r i s d i c t i o n , r e v i e w and r e v e r s e t h e District C o u r t ' s o r d e r of May 26, and e n t e r an o r d e r s u s t a i n i n g r e l a t o r ' s o b j e c t i o n s , o r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e o r d e r a response to t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . T h i s Court t h e n o r d e r e d a r e s p o n s e by t h e p l a i n t i f f i n t h e District Court a c t i o n which h a s now been r e c e i v e d , examined and c o n s i d e r e d . W e now r e f u s e to a c c e p t j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l on t h e f o l l o w i n g grounds: 1. The a p p l i c a t i o n is untimely. 2. Relator h a s n o t exhausted h i s a v a i l a b l e remedies i n t h e District Court. 3. R e l a t o r h a s an a d e q u a t e remedy a t law p r e c l u d i n g r e v i e w by e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t . 4. P o l i c y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s move o u r d i s c r e t i o n to r e f u s e j u r i s d i c t i o n . The D i s t r i c t Court1 s o r d e r denying relator's o b j e c t i o n s to t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and d i r e c t i n g relator to answer t h e same w i t h i n 30 d a y s was i s s u e d on May 26, 1981. The p e t i t i o n for a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l was n o t f i l e d w i t h t h i s Court u n t i l August 61 1981. Thus t h e a p p l i c a t i o n was n o t made u n t i l 40 d a y s a f t e r t h e time f o r answering i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s had e x p i r e d . A s s u c h , t h e a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l is u n t i - mely and i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e District C o u r t ' s o r d e r . N e i t h e r h a s relator exhausted h i s remedies i n t h e District Court. Relator h a s n o t a p p l i e d f o r a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r under Rule 2 6 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P., l i m i t i n g t h e scope of t h e i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s n o r h a s it a p p l i e d f o r an o r d e r under Rule 3 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) , M.R.Civ.P., a s s e s s i n g c o s t s i n c l u d i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s a g a i n s t t h e l o s i n g p a r t y should t h e District Court o r d e r be r e v e r s e d on a p p e a l . The District Court h a s i n h e r e n t d i s c r e t i o n a r y power t o c o n t r o l d i s c o v e r y and t h a t power is based upon t h e District C o u r t ' s a u t h o r i t y to c o n t r o l t r i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . Massaro v. Dunham (1979) Mont. I 603 P.2d 249, 36 St.Rep, 2102. C o n t r o l o v e r p r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y is b e s t e x e r c i s e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court which is i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t h a n t h i s Court t o s u p e r v i s e t h e day t o day o p e r a t i o n s o f p r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y . The r e q u i r e m e n t of e x h a u s t i o n of remedies i n t h e District Court b e f o r e s e e k i n g i n t e r v e n t i o n by e x t r a o r - d i n a r y w r i t from t h i s Court w i l l promote t h i s o b j e c t i v e and sup- p o r t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s a u t h o r i t y to c o n t r o l day by day t r i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n . R e l a t o r also h a s an a d e q u a t e remedy a t law p r e c l u d i n g r e v i e w by e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t . The t h r u s t of relator's conten- t i o n s is t h a t f o r c i n g it to answer t h e two i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s w i l l s u b j e c t them to g r e a t h a r d s h i p and expense. I n t h i s day of com- p u t e r i z e d r e t r i e v a l of claims r e c o r d s it is hard to understand t h e h a r d s h i p involved. The expense involved can be a s s e s s e d a g a i n s t t h e l o s i n g p a r t y a t t r i a l or upon a p p e a l . Rule 3 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) , M.R.Civ.P. P o l i c y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a l s o s u p p o r t o u r r e f u s a l to accept j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h i s p e t i t i o n f o r an e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t . W e acknowledge Kuiper v. District Court of Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t . (1981) I Mont . , 632 P.2d 694, 38 St.Rep. 1288, i n which w e a c c e p t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n to review and r e v e r s e an o r d e r of t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court g r a n t i n g a p r o t e c t i v e o r d e r a g a i n s t d i s c l o s u r e o f t r a d e secrets. That proceeding is d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e p r e s e n t case i n t h a t t h e r e t h e remedies b e f o r e t h e District Court had been exhausted p r i o r to a p p l y i n g to t h i s Court f o r super- v i s o r y c o n t o l . W e acknowledged t h a t i n one case n i n e y e a r s ago we g r a n t e d a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l to review and r e v e r s e t h e scope of an i n t e r r o g a t o r y proposed by p l a i n t i f f i n t h e District Court. S t a t e ex rel. Bankers L i f e & C a s u a l t y Co. v . Miller (1972) 160 Mont. 256, 502 P.2d 27. I f t h i s Court were to c o n t i n u e a p o l i c y of i n t e r j e c t i n g i t s e l f i n t o an i n t e r l o c u t o r y r e v i e w of r u l i n g s of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s of t h i s state con- c e r n i n g i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s and o b j e c t i o n s t h e r e t o , we would n o t o n l y make it d i f f i c u l t f o r t h e District Court to c o n t r o l d a y to day t r i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n b u t we would open a P a n d o r a t s Box o f abuses. A l l t h a t a f i n a n c i a l l y s u p e r i o r i n s u r a n c e company would have t o do to d e l a y i n t e r m i n a b l y o r d e f e a t a p l a i n t i f f ' s a c t i o n for damages, no matter how m e r i t o r i o u s , would be to f i l e s u c c e s s i v e a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r review of e v e r y r u l i n g of t h e District Court concerning i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , d e p o s i t i o n s , r e q u e s t s f o r a d m i s s i o n s , and o t h e r p r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y t h e r e b y r e n d e r i n g it u n l i k e l y t h a t p l a i n t i f f could e v e r g e t to t r i a l w i t h i n a reaso- n a b l e t i m e . A t t h e same t i m e t h i s would d e f e a t one purpose and g o a l of t h e Montana Rules of C i v i l Procedure--a speedy, inex- p e n s i v e , and j u s t method of d i s c o v e r i n g t h e f a c t s upon which e a c h p a r t y ' s r i g h t of a c t i o n depends. It might also l i t e r a l l y b u r y t h i s Court i n a paper b l i z z a r d of a p p l i c a t i o n s f o r super- v i s o r y c o n t r o l to review r u l i n g s of t h e District Court on p r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y . Our h o l d i n g h e r e is c o n s i s t e n t w i t h f e d e r a l c o u r t d e c i - s i o n s on t h e s u b j e c t . The p o l i c y of t h e f e d e r a l a p p e l l a t e c o u r t s t o r e f use i n t e r l o c u t o r y review of p r e t r i a l d i s c o v e r y o r d e r s and t h e r e a s o n s t h e r e f o r were e x p r e s s e d by Judge A l d i s e r t i n t h i s manner: "Every i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r i n v o l v e s , to some d e g r e e , a p o t e n t i a l loss. That r i s k , however, must be balanced a g a i n s t t h e need f o r e f f i c i e n t f e d e r a l j u d i c i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n as evidenced by t h e C o n g r e s s i o n a l p r o h i b i t i o n of piecemeal a p p e l l a t e l i t i g a t i o n . To a c c e p t t h e a p p e l l a n t t s view is to i n v i t e t h e i n u n d a t i o n of a p p e l l a t e d o c k e t s w i t h what have h e r e t o f o r e been regarded as nonappealable matters. It would c o n s t i t u t e t h e c o u r t s of a p p e a l s as second-stage motion c o u r t s reviewing p r e t r i a l a p p l i c a t i o n s of a l l non-party w i t n e s s e s a1 l e g ing some damage because o f t h e l i t i g a t i o n . "To a c c e p t t h e a p p e l l a n t t s view is also t o i n v i t e a g e o m e t r i c a l i n c r e a s e i n t h e a l r e a d y u n a c c e p t a b l e d e l a y between t h e d a t e of f i l i n g and t r i a l i n t h e m e t r o p o l i t a n d i s t r i c t c o u r t s . The p r e s e n t case, f i l e d o v e r t h r e e y e a r s ago and now h e l d i n abeyance pending t h e outcome of t h i s a p p e a l , is a s p l e n d i d example of t h e Homeric p r o p o r t i o n s t h a t such l i t i g a t i o n can assume. Our overburdened c o u r t s have l i t t l e t i m e o r a p p e t i t e f o r such p r o t r a c t i o n s . " Borden Company v. S y l k ( 3 r d C i r . 1 9 6 9 ) r 410 F.2d 8 4 3 . For t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s we d e c l i n e j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h i s c a u s e and d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l . Chief ~ u s t i c e \