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
Submitted: September 17, 1981
Decided : &-1 1 4 rh'
Piled: 9CT 14 1 8
.
9:
Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e
Court.
T h i s is a n a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a w r i t o f 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 D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r d e n y i n g r e l a t o r ' 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 a n s w e r them w i t h i n 30 d a y s .
On J a n u a r y 11, 1 9 7 9 , t h e c o m p l a i n t i n t h e u n d e r l y i n g
a c t i o n was f i l e d i n t h e ~ i s t r i c t o u r t o f C a s c a d e C o u n t y .
C
P l a i n t i f f w a s r e l a t o r ' s i n s u r e d whose t r a c t o r and t r a i l e r
were damaged i n a n a u t o m o b i l e a c c i d e n t . Plaintiffs allege two
claims a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s e e k i n g c o m p e n s a t o r y and p u n i t i v e
d a m a g e s 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 w i t h 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 the course of p r e t r i a l discovery 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 R u l e 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
follows:
"INTERROGATORY NUMBER -
2:
" P l e a s e s t a t e t h e number o f t o t a l l o s s claims
w h i c h were s e t t l e d b y y o u r company b e t w e e n J u l y
1, 1 9 7 5 , and J u l y 1, 1 9 7 8 , b y a d i r e c t payment
f r o m y o u r company f u n d s o n l y i n t h e amount o f
t h e insured v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y less the
s a l v a g e p r i c e and d e d u c t i b l e , and w h e r e t h e r e
was a d i r e c t payment o f 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
each such s e t t l e m e n t , p l e a s e state:
"(a) The d a t e o f t h e l o s s ;
"(b) The d a t e o f t h e payment from y o u r company;
" ( c ) The d a t e of t h e payment from t h e s a l v a g e
purchaser;
"(d) The amount o f t h e payment from y o u r c o m -
pany funds;
" ( e ) The amount o f t h e payment from t h e s a l v a g e
purchaser;
"( f ) W h e t h e r s e t t l e m e n t s i n t h i s m a t t e r were
i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s t a n d a r d company p r o -
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 s o ,
p l e a s e i d e n t i f y a n y and a l l d o c u m e n t a t i o n
w h i c h s e t s f o r t h t h i s s t a n d a r d company
procedure and/or i d e n t i f y t h e p o l i c y
provision 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
m o t i o n to p r o d u c e , e a c h and e v e r y w r i t i n g o f
w h a t e v e r k i n d and n a t u r e which i n a n y way per-
t a i n s t o t h e information requested by
I n t e r r o g a t o r y Number 2 a b o v e , i n c l u d i n g ( w i t h o u t
n e e d o f s e t t i n g f o r t h t h e name o f t h e i n s u r e d
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 the District Court t h a t these
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 , h a v e n o t b e e n shown i n a n y m a n n e r to
b e u n r e a s o n a b l y b u r d e n s o m e or v e x a t i o u s , and a r e t h e o n l y a v e n u e
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 o f b u s i n e s s c o n d u c t 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 the District 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 u n d u l y a n n o y i n g , o p p r e s s i v e , b u r d e n s o m e 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 a r e n o t r e a s o n a b l y c a l c u l a t e d t o l e a d t o t h e d i s c o -
v e r y of a d m i s s i b l e evidence.
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 w h i c h 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 D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d a n o r d e r d a t e d and f i l e d o n May 2 6 ,
1981, t h a t t h e information sought w a s d i s c o v e r a b l e information,
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 a l l o w e d r e l a t o r 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 A u g u s t 6 , 1 9 8 1 , r e l a t o r f i l e d i n t h i s C o u r t i t s a p p l i -
c a t i o n f o r a w r i t o f 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 u s to a c c e p t
jurisdiction , review and r e v e r s e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r of
May 2 6 , and e n t e r a n 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 r e s p o n s e 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 in the
D i s t r i c t C o u r t a c t i o n which h a s now b e e n r e c e i v e d , examined and
considered.
W now r e f u s e t o a c c e p t j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e p e t i t i o n f o r
e
w r i t o f 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 u n t i m e l y .
2. Relator h a s n o t e x h a u s t e d h i s a v a i l a b l e r e m e d i e s i n
t h e District Court.
3. R e l a t o r h a s a n 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
jurisdiction.
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t 1s o r d e r d e n y i n g r e l a t o r ' 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 r e l a t o r to a n s w e r t h e same
w i t h i n 30 d a y s was i s s u e d on May 2 6 , 1 9 8 1 . The p e t i t i o n f o r a
w r i t o f 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 C o u r t 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 a n s w e r i n g i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s had e x p i r e d . As
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 -
m e l y and i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r .
N e i t h e r has 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 u n d e r R u l e
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 a n o r d e r u n d e r R u l e 3 7 ( a ) ( 4 ) , M.R.Civ.P., assessing
c o s t s including a t t o r n e y fees a g a i n s t the losing party should the
D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r be r e v e r s e d o n a p p e a l . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t
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 b a s e d upon 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
trial administration. Massaro v. Dunham ( 1 9 7 9 ) Mont. I
6 0 3 P.2d 2 4 9 , 36 S t . R e p , 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 b y t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t 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
of p r e t r i a l discovery. The r e q u i r e m e n t o f e x h a u s t i o n of r e m e d i e s
i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t 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 C o u r t w i l l p r o m o t e 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 d a y b y d a y t r i a l
administration.
R e l a t o r a l s o h a s a n a d e q u a t e remedy a t law p r e c l u d i n g
review 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 o f r e l a t o r ' s c o n t e n -
t i o n s is t h a t f o r c i n g it t o a n s w e r 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 t o g r e a t h a r d s h i p and e x p e n s e . I n t h i s d a y o f com-
p u t e r i z e d r e t r i e v a l o f claims r e c o r d s it is h a r d to u n d e r s t a n d
t h e hardship involved. The e x p e n s e i n v o l v e d c a n 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 o r 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 over t h i s p e t i t i o n f o r an extraordinary w r i t . We
a c k n o w l e d g e K u i p e r v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t .
(1981) I Mont . , 6 3 2 P.2d 6 9 4 , 38 S t . R e p . 1 2 8 8 , 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 t o r e v i e w and r e v e r s e a n o r d e r o f t h e
~ i s t r i c t ourt granting a p r o t e c t i v e order a g a i n s t d i s c l o s u r e
C
o f t r a d e secrets. T h a t p r o c e e d i n g 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 r e m e d i e s b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
had been e x h a u s t e d p r i o r to a p p l y i n g to t h i s Court f o r super-
visory contol. W e a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t i n o n e case n i n e y e a r s
a g o we g r a n t e d a w r i t o f 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 t h e s c o p e o f a n i n t e r r o g a t o r y p r o p o s e d 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 ( 1 9 7 2 ) 1 6 0 Mont. 2 5 6 , 5 0 2 P.2d 27. I f t h i s C o u r t were t o
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 o f r u l i n g s o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e 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 , w e 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 D i s t r i c t C o u r t to c o n t r o l
d a y t o d a y t r i a l a d m i n i s t r a t i o n b u t we would o p e n 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 h a v e t o do t o 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 f o r d a m a g e s , no matter how m e r i t o r i o u s , would be t o 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 r e v i e w of e v e r y r u l i n g o f t h e
District Court concerning i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , depositions, 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 i t
u n l i k e l y t h a t p l a i n t i f f c o u l d e v e r g e t to t r i a l w i t h i n a reaso-
nable 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 o n e p u r p o s e and
g o a l o f t h e Montana R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e - - a speedy, inex-
p e n s i v e , and j u s t method o f 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. I t m i g h t 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 r e v i e w r u l i n g s of t h e District Court on
p r e t r i a l discovery.
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 o f 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 J u d g e A l d i s e r t
i n t h i s manner:
" E v e r y 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,
m u s t be b a l a n c e d 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 e v i d e n c e d b y
t h e Congressional p r o h i b i t i o n of piecemeal
appellate litigation. To a c c e p t t h e a p p e l l a n t t s
v i e w is to i n v i t e t h e i n u n d a t i o n o f 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
a s n o n a p p e a l a b l e m a t t e r s . I t would c o n s t i t u t e
t h e c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s as s e c o n d - s t a g e m o t i o n
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
n o n - p a r t y w i t n e s s e s a1 l e g i n g some damage b e c a u s e
of the litigation.
"To a c c e p t t h e a p p e l l a n t t s v i e w is a l s o t o
i n v i t e a geometrical increase i n the already
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 a b e y a n c e p e n d i n g t h e o u t c o m e o f t h i s
a p p e a l , is a s p l e n d i d e x a m p l e o f 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 c a n assume.
Our o v e r b u r d e n e d c o u r t s h a v e 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 . " B o r d e n 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 o f 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