A trial court has authority to impose discovery sanctions pursuant to Mont. R. Civ. P. 37. The Montana Supreme Court reviews sanctions imposed pursuant to Mont. R. Civ. P. 37 for an abuse of discretion. Maloney v. Home & Inv. Ctr., Inc., 2000 MT 34, ¶ 27, 298 Mont. 213, 994 P.2d 1124. See also Kraft v. High Country Motors, Inc., 2012 MT 83, ¶ 23, 364 Mont. 465, 276 P.3d 908.
The Court’s concern with crowded dockets and efficient judicial administration requires “judicial intolerance of discovery abuses”. McKenzie v. Scheeler>, 285 Mont. 500, 506, 949 P.2d 1168, 1171 (1997) (citing Smith v. Butte-Silver Bow Cnty., 276 Mont. 329, 332, 916 P.2d 91, 92–93 (1996)). For this reason, we regard the decision to impose sanctions for failure to comply with discovery procedures favorably. McKenzie, 285 Mont. 500 at 506, 949 P.2d at 1172 (citing Huffine v. Boyland, 239 Mont. 515, 517, 782 P.2d 77, 78 (1989)).
We generally defer to the trial court’s judgment on the decision to impose sanctions for discovery violations because “the trial court is in the best position to know whether parties are disregarding the rights of opposing parties in the course of litigation and which sanctions for such conduct are most appropriate.” , 285 Mont. at 506, 949 P.2d at 1172 (citing Smith, 276 Mont. at 332, 916 P.2d at 93). See also Linn v. Whitaker, 2007 MT 46, ¶ 13, 336 Mont. 131, 152 P.3d 1282.