*1 381 PATTERSON, STEPHEN C. Respondent,
Petitioner v. JUSTICE, MONTANA, DEPT. OF
STATE OF DIVISION, MOTOR VEHICLE Respondent Appellant. No. 01-492. January 31, Briefs 2002.
Submitted on
May 9,
Decided
MT 97.
For Sutton, Law, Respondent: Jeffrey Attorney For Great Falls. Opinion JUSTICE REGNIER delivered the of the Court. Montana, Justice, Motor Appellant Department State of Vehicle ¶1 Division, by District appeals from an order issued the Fourth Judicial Court, County, granted Respondent Stephen Missoula which petition to reinstate his driver’s license. We affirm. The sole issue on is whether the District Court erred when appeal ¶2 it reinstated driver’s license based on the State’s failure to compelling production report. with an order of a 9-1-1
BACKGROUND 14,2000, County dispatch On December the Missoula 9-1-1 center anonymous report slumped of an male received an unconscious over City Hedges of a vehicle. Missoula Police Officer Keith was wheel scene, Hedges to the At the Officer found Patterson dispatched scene. Hedges draped steering running asleep. over the wheel of a vehicle fast off, and breathing, shut the vehicle verified that Patterson was awoke During exchange, Hedges inquire him to into his condition. strong Hedges odor of alcohol on Patterson’s breath. also detected bloodshot, glassy eyes that Patterson had slurred observed speech. point, Hedges At asked Patterson to exit the vehicle sobriety Following field tests.
perform various standardized tests, advisory read a breath test to completion Hedges of three sample that Patterson submit a for a requested Patterson and sample. refused to a breath preliminary breath test. Patterson submit driving Patterson for under Consequently, Hedges arrested his license. influence of alcohol and seized driver’s counsel, 27,2000, plea of Patterson filed a notice of On December 29,2000, Patterson guilty, jury trial. On December any 911 or requesting copy sent a letter to the State “transcribed incident, including any by this calls received dispatch calls related to responded that Patterson anonymous tipsters.” subsequently State dispatch from the 9-1-1 independently report would have to obtain 2,2001, January challenged On Patterson filed a which center. 61-8-403, of his license MCA. suspension § continue, Ultimately, following a motion to the District Court set the hearing matter for a reinstatement on March 2001. On March discovery requests sought, Patterson served the State with which among things, other of the 9-1-1 copy report. transcribed Court continued the Subsequently, May District May On parties appeared hearing. Prior to hearing, Patterson grounds filed another motion to continue on the that the State had not him provided with a transcribed of the 9-1- 1 report. arguments The District Court parties heard from both on the motion hearing May and continued the District Court warned the State that if it failed 17,2001, May the Court would reinstate Patterson’s driver’s license and dismiss the suspension. May On the parties appeared before the District Court *3 hearing. reinstatement The State informed the District Court
that it was unable obtain a of the 9-1-1 report. granted
District Court for reinstatement of his appeals license. State the District Court’s order of reinstatement.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
generally
This Court
defers to the decision of a trial court
regarding
discovery
sanctions for failure to comply
procedures
with
because the trial court
position
is
the best
to know whether parties
disregarding
rights
are
opposing parties
of
in the course of
litigation and which sanctions for such conduct are most appropriate.
(1997),
500, 506,
1168, 1172.
McKenzie v. Scheeler
285 Mont.
949 P.2d
result,
As a
we
imposition
review district court’s
of sanctions for
comply
discovery
failure to
procedures
with
to determine
whether
McKenzie,
506,
court abused its discretion.
DISCUSSION Did the District Court err when it reinstated Patterson’s driver’s 384 compelling an order comply failure to with on the State’s
license based report? of a 9-1-1 production 61-8-403, MCA, explicitly argues appeal, § On the State to enumerated issues. inquiry reinstatement
confines a driver’s license
report contains information
requested
9-1-1
The State insists that
Therefore, according to
specified
of
issues.
beyond
purview
those
petition,
on
State,
granting
Court erred
failed to show that the
discovery grounds,
Patterson
because
at hand.
essential
to the issues
relevant
contained
abused its
Further,
the District Court
suggests
the State
sanction,
i.e.,
of a
equivalent
levying
the ultimate
discretion
inability
State’s
dismissal,
prejudiced
as Patterson was
information.
requested
of
party’s
that a
abuse
consistently
has
stated
This Court
unnecessary delay
of a case
results
discovery procedures which
transgressors
punished
should be
leniently;
not be dealt with
should
discovery
cooperate in the
encouraged repeatedly to
rather
than
K-Decorators, Inc.,
13, 87,
MT
293 Mont.
1999
¶
Delaware v.
process.
dockets and
97,
818,
related to crowded
87, 973 P.2d
87. Concerns
¶
¶
judicial administration
maintain fair and efficient
responsibility
discovery-related
impose
the traditional
reluctance
have shifted
Smith v. Butte-
of
abuses.
judicial
to a
intolerance
sanctions
Thus,
91,
(1996),
916 P.2d
County
276 Mont.
Silver Bow
failure to
with
of sanctions for
imposition
506,
McKenzie,
court’s
Indeed,
proposition on
have reaffirmed this
issues.
enumerated
See,
Krause,
MT
309
v.
e.g.,
¶
State
numerous occasions.
Justice,
State,
493, 26;
Dep’t
174, 26, 44
Hulse v.
P.3d
¶
Mont.
¶
75,
11;
11,
Thompson v.
¶
MT
289 Mont.
¶
¶
1333, 1336.
372, 376, 871
(1994), Mont.
P.2d
Department
Justice
MCA,
61-8-403,
is a civil
to §
held
and, therefore,
in accordance with
must be conducted
proceeding,
264 Mont.
Thompson,
Procedure. See
Rules of Civil
Montana
and Rule M.R.Civ.P.
The whom the is request served shall serve a written response days within 30 after the service of request, except may that a defendant response days serve a within 45 after service of the complaint upon summons and that defendant .... state, response The shall respect to each item or category, inspection and related activities will permitted be as requested, to, objected unless the is in which event the objection reasons for shall be stated. 6, 2001, On March Patterson served the State with a number of
interrogatories, requests admission, requests for production, which following: included the
REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION NO. 12.: Please transcribed copy of all dispatch, any or other radio broadcast communications any made or received by official, law enforcement personnel, medical fire and rescue personnel, or citizen informant regards to this matter. On April the State answered the above request as follows: RESPONSE: [State] The has requested that 911 produce a copy of the 911 tape prepared in relation to [Patterson’s] arrest. If and when it is made City Office, available to Attorney’s copy of the tape will be made available for [Patterson’s] inspection, review, copying. If [Patterson] chooses to make a transcript of the tape after it has been made available to [Patterson], objection [State] has no doing [Patterson] so. procedure rules of civil premised are upon policy of liberal discovery. broad Burlington (1989), Northern v.District Court Mont. 885, 891. Therefore, begin we must with the presumption relevant, the 9-1-1 report was discoverable If, information. as the suggests, State now requested Patterson irrelevant information scope outside the hearing, of the reinstatement the State had the obligation object affirmative to the request or file a motion with the District Court to discovery. limit The State did such, neither. As the District Court also had proceed under the assumption that Patterson appropriately requested discoverable 26(b), to Rule M.R.Civ.P. 10,2001, As May purportedly date set for the reinstatement hearing, produced State had not a copy of the 9-1-1 report. date, on that telephonic Court held a conference *5 it continue the that would
whereby parties it informed the Thus, the State with provided the District Court May until However, the request. the comply to opportunity one more of the not furnished that if “the State has Court warned District time, and dismiss permit the driver’s by I’ll reinstate call to 911 that 17,2001, that it could May the State conceded suspension.” On the granted Accordingly, District Court the tape of the 9-1-1 call. locate a license. of his driver’s petition for reinstatement Patterson’s driver’s license reinstating Patterson’s Court’s order The District granted simply It authority for its ultimate determination. no cited with the “failed to the State because of this by the time full disclosure requiring Order... Court’s its the State for Court sanctioned Essentially, the District hearing.” in of Patterson. judgment favor by entering a default shortcomings Court, by the that Therefore, language utilized from the presume M.R.Civ.P., and, of this 37(b)(2), purposes for to Rule it acted Court’s determination the District we will evaluate appeal, accordingly. M.R.Civ.P., 37(b)(2), provides: Rule fails pending. party... If a by court in which action is
Sanctions court in discovery, ... the permit or obey provide an order to to regard may make such orders pending is which the action following: others the just among the failure as are (C) thereof, staying or parts or striking pleadings An out order dismissing the obeyed, is or until the order proceedings further thereof, judgment rendering or any part or or proceeding action party. the disobedient against default the State to Court ordered the District Clearly, May on Further, 17,2001, State conceded May the on report. the 9-1-1 produce Court was the District report. the it could not with Rule State in accordance against the levying sanctions justified However, authorized to District Court was 37(b)(2)(C), the M.R.Civ.P. of this purposes Consequently, for “just.” as were such orders enter its Court abused hinges on whether inquiry the appeal, it did. levying the sanction discretion Rule justifying purposes Subject to the remedial aforementioned and our M.R.Civ.P., discovery abuses sanctions for same, we have of the imposition the regarding policy deferential determining whether we consider factors which identified three 1) look to: whether We of discretion. an abuse sanction constitutes consequences imposed by the sanctions relate to extent and nature 2) abuse; prejudice of the of the actual extent 3) party discovery abuse; from opposing which resulted abusing the court expressly whether warned the Center, Inc., MT consequences. Maloney v. Home and Investment 298 Mont. ¶ ¶ ¶ core lies analysis presumption At the of our the above mentioned surrounding of relevance the 9-1-1 report, given failure object the State’s otherwise. The State insists on appeal beyond scope contained and, therefore, hearing, reinstatement contends that Patterson prejudice no its produce. suffered from failure to due obligations placed upon parties by Montana Civil Rules of *6 Procedure, purposes appeal, for this of we must treat the requested report as relevant information. such, As the State’s failure to relinquish
¶21
the relevant information
certainly compromised
ability
Patterson’s
prepare
present
to
and
an
challenge
informed
impending proceeding.
the
Common
and
sense
suggest
fundamental fairness
that no
be
proceed
should
forced to
uncertainty.”
under such a “cloud of
we
that
Consequently,
conclude
the reinstatement of Patterson’s driver’s license relates to the extent
Further,
and
of the
discovery
nature
actual
the
inability
abuse.
State’s
provide
to
the
essentially suspended
the case’s progress.
party’s
When a
failure
discovery procedures effectively
to
with
halts the
it
in
process,
impermissible prejudice
results
the
to
party. McKenzie,
opposing
Court expressly potential warned the State of the for consequences with noncompliance its order. and, disagree We do not the analysis with dissent’s relevance likelihood,
all the case have different the compelled would result had State propounded position, prescribed by such a as the Montana Rules of Civil Procedure. the proceed State did not such Consequently, manner. we do not that share the dissent’s sentiment discovery analysis the Court’s or this diverted District Court’s any from underlying attention substantive issue. its response request production, In to Patterson’s for State “[i]f
claimed that it would provide Patterson with a Attorney’s Simply it is to City when made available Office.” put, timely objection the State failed to to assert finally production appeal,
for District Court. On the State requests we to its aid via a raises relevance issue and that come District did finding of an abuse of discretion. The Court not contemplate argument, notification from the the relevance absent itself parties, position will not allow the State to avail of a preserved. was not The record before District Court properly divulged presumably State simply revealed had compel face of order such judicial discoverable information in the judicial production. days In these of crowded dockets strained resources, applicable must abide rules of practitioners litigants As procedure for courts maintain some semblance order. enjoy by Montana protections often the benefits and afforded Rules Procedure, they prepared accept of Civil should likewise be consequences Accordingly, we hold that the District noncompliance. did its when it granted Court not abuse discretion of his for reinstatement driver’s license. Affirmed. GRAY, and COTTER
CHIEF JUSTICE JUSTICES TRIEWEILER concur.
JUSTICE NELSON dissents. nothing I from the decision. The issue is dissent Court’s herring. tape undisputed but a red The 9-1-1 was irrelevant under the facts here. challenge to the at issue involved Patterson’s proceeding 61-8-403, MCA. It is well
suspension of his driver’s license under § this is limited to settled that under statute the trial court’s review (1) grounds peace three whether a officer had reasonable issues: person driving physical had been or was actual believe that *7 upon ways open public of of to the while control a vehicle the this state (2) two; alcohol, the drugs, the of or a combination of under influence (3) arrest; under and whether the placed whether the was person drugs of or submit test for the alcohol person presence refused to to the State, (1997), Justice 282 Mont. person’s body. Gentry Dept. in the v. of 495, 693, 491, P.2d 695.1 938 (2) bar, of fact as disputed questions In at there are no the case ¶27 (1) (3). only majority opinion. That leaves as See 3-4 of ¶¶ 1 judiee. applies The of Code in case sub The 1999 version the Montana language Gentry §of 61- in version. While the version of the code at issue was 1995 61-8-403(4)(a), (1999), 8-403(4)(a), (1995), the basic from MCA § MCA varies somewhat Gentry applied inquiry in in the same-at least as three the instant case. articulated remain elements of
389 issue the trial court’s for review. the sort before us with the Typically, stop of case here starts of by vehicle a officer a or police
accused’s based on traffic violation driving. characteristically erratic The accused claims that there nowas See, particularized suspicion grounds stop. or reasonable for State, 9, 196, 262, 9, example, Grindeland v. 2001 MT 306 Mont. ¶ ¶ 767, Indeed, 32 P.3d have held that in a ¶ a to reinstate license, the trial must peace court look whether a first “particularized suspicion” making stop. officer had for the initial State, 13, 8, 114, 1003, 8, 18 2001 MT Morris v. 304 Mont. P.3d ¶ ¶ ¶ mind, premise in Keeping only possible relevance that the 9-1-1 would have had to the bar tape proceedings at was whether arresting grounds officer had “stopping” reasonable Patterson. However, here, reflects, as 3 of the Court’s no opinion there was ¶ stop. out, drunk, passed initial Patterson was slumped over wheel, steering running. with his vehicle record also reflects that parked Patterson’s vehicle was on a public Street-North Pattee Street-in Missoula. Hedges Importantly, Officer did a result nothing tip as of the 9-1-1
that he could not have without tip. simply upon done Had he come parked street, public vehicle on a running with the motor passed steering wheel, driver out over Hedges Officer would have authority-in fact, had duty-to further, investigate whether based on suspicion intoxicated, reasonable that the driver was see State v. (1988), 311, 1379, Morris 230 Mont. 749 P.2d or under the “welfare doctrine, 33, 11, check” Boyer, see State MT v. 308 Mont. ¶ 11, 42 (citing (1991), P.3d ¶ Grinde v. State ¶ Mont.
813 P.2d on grounds overruled other Bush v. Montana 716). DOJ, Div., Motor Vehicle 1998 MT 291 Mont. 968 P.2d I While do not condone the sloppy practice State’s while, case, some tape other the 9-1-1 have been may crucial determining whether the initial on stop particularized was based suspicion (1997), 37), (compare State v. Pratt 286 Mont. case, tape Why the context this the 9-1-1 irrelevant. how was or Hedges Officer came to at Patterson’s matters all be vehicle not at Hedges since there was no case law Officer do stop. permitted Our did, exactly he his regardless appearance what what prompted vehicle. enforcing I are an method of agree important sanctions obligations in civil and criminal cases alike. nothing punishing failing irrelevant evidence is *8 legitimate purpose. sake and has no but a sanction sanction’s reverse, here, I the trial would vacate undisputed On the facts suspension to be decision, and license order court’s failure to so. I dissent from our do reinstated. foregoing RICE concur in the dissent. LEAPHART and
JUSTICES