Opinion ID: 886521
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The District Court's denial of untimely pretrial motions

Text: ¶ 64 We next consider whether the District Court erred when it denied various motions filed by Weldele at the pretrial conference as untimely. ¶ 65 The District Court entered an Order on July 17, 2000, instructing counsel that all pretrial motions including motions in limine had to be filed with the court by July 28, 2000. Weldele filed a motion in limine and a motion to suppress evidence on November 1, 2000. The District Court denied the motions as untimely. ¶ 66 While it may have been within the court's discretion to modify the scheduling order and accept the motions, it was also within its discretion to deny such motions as untimely based upon Weldele's failure to comply with the scheduling order. Section 46-13-101(2), MCA, allows, Failure of a party to raise defenses or objections or to make requests that must be made prior to trial, at the time set by the court, constitutes a waiver of the defense, objection, or request. We find no fault with the District Court's decision, recognizing that the court is in the best position to determine which sanctions are most appropriate for the offending conduct. Denial of a motion in limine filed in disregard of a scheduling order is not an abuse of discretion. See Seal v. Woodrows Pharmacy, 1999 MT 247, 296 Mont. 197, 988 P.2d 1230. ¶ 67 Applying the same rationale to the District Court's denial of Weldele's untimely motion to suppress, we affirm the court's denial of that motion as well.