be controlled by Rule 16 unless otherwise ordered by the court. [¶ 12] Thus, because Baker’s Table had no occasion or responsibility to file a motion pursuant to Rule 80B(d), the court erred in concluding that failure to move for a trial of the facts on the independent claims constituted grounds for the dismissal of those claims. B. Rule 80B(i) [¶ 13] The court entered its second order of dismissal based on Baker’s Table’s failure to comply with Rule 80B(i), requiring the complainant to request that the court specify the future course of the proceedings. There is no question that Rule 80B(i) applied to these proceedings. [¶ 1 ing good faith belief that review would be stayed by bankruptcy filing made dismissal an improper sanction); Spickler v. York, 566 A.2d 1385, 1388-89 (Me.1989) (<HOLDING>). Because the trial court must weigh these
holding sanctions were appropriate when excessive responsive pleadings were filed for purposes of delay holding sanctions were appropriate where party filed motions merely for purposes of delay holding sanctions were appropriate due to prejudice imposed on other party from failure to disclose subject matter of expert testimony holding sanctions were appropriate when the party had no reasonable justification for his repeated failures to designate an expert recognizing power of bankruptcy court to impose sanctions on parties and counsel who willfully abuse the judicial process but not finding sanctions appropriate against debtor and his attorney for their repeated bankruptcy filings