Opinion ID: 886734
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Did the District Court err in denying McDonald's Motion to Compel and in granting Gentry's Motion for a Protective Order?

Text: ¶ 36 McDonald argues that because of the District Court's denial of his Motion to Compel, he was not afforded the opportunity to conduct any discovery. Such a ruling, McDonald contends, is in error, as the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure make no provision for avoiding or tolling discovery while a motion for judgment on the pleadings is pending, nor do the Rules of Evidence contain any provision that define `relevance' as contingent upon a court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment. ¶ 37 Gentry argues that McDonald did not preserve the above-articulated argument on appeal, as he did not expressly appeal the district court's protective order of May 30, 2002. As such, Gentry contends that this Court cannot review or rule upon the District Court's Order, given that McDonald did not attach the Order, nor did he make any references to the Order. And, even assuming that McDonald did preserve his right to appeal the District Court's Order, Gentry argues that because McDonald did not properly raise before the District Court the issue he raises here by attaching a copy of his discovery, McDonald's argument is still procedurally barred from this Court's review. ¶ 38 Rule 9(a) of the Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure states: The original papers and exhibits filed in the district court, the transcript of proceedings, if any, and a certified copy of the docket entries prepared by the clerk of the district court shall constitute the record on appeal in all cases. It is the duty of a party seeking review of a judgment, order or proceeding to present the supreme court with a record sufficient to enable it to rule upon the issues raised. Failure to present the court with a sufficient record on appeal may result in dismissal of the appeal and/or the imposition of some other appropriate sanction. [Emphasis added.] ¶ 39 Review of the record reveals that upon Gentry's Motion for a Protective Order and McDonald's response therein, the District Court found that pending a ruling on Plaintiff's [Gentry's] Motion for Summary Judgment, Plaintiff is excused from responding to discovery. Nowhere in the record does McDonald provide this Court with the actual Interrogatories and Requests for Production that he served upon Gentry. Hence, we cannot review McDonald's claim that because he could not conduct discovery he thereby could not adequately defend Gentry's contentions during oral argument on its summary judgment motion. We are at a loss as to what facts McDonald wished to discover. It is McDonald's burden to provide this Court with a sufficient record to enable us to address the issue he raises here. McDonald did not meet this burden. Accordingly, we do not address his argument here. ¶ 40 Affirmed. JIM REGNIER, PATRICIA O. COTTER, W. WILLIAM LEAPHART, and JIM RICE, JJ., concur.