Baker’s Table of that obligation. In the absence of such relief, Baker’s Table was required to file the motion on or before December 14, 1998, and its failure to do so exposed it to the risk of sanctions by the court. The City sought those sanctions by filing its second motion to dismiss alleging the failure to comply with Rule 80B(i). [¶ 16] Unlike Rule 16, Rule 80B does not expressly provide for dismissal with prejudice as a sanction for failure to comply with any of its provisions. Compare M.R. Civ. P. 16(h) with M.R. Civ. P. 80B(h). See also, e.g., M.R. Civ. P. 11, 37. Nonetheless, the court has the inherent authority to sanction a party’s failure to comply with the rules. In exercising its discretion to determine what, if any, sanction should be imposed for a viola 518, 522 (<HOLDING>); Longley v. Knapp, 1998 ME 142, ¶ 8, 713 A.2d
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 holding sanctions were appropriate where party filed motions merely for purposes of delay holding reversal required where party lacked an opportunity to present evidence on the issue before sanctions imposed holding that defense counsels failure to object to testimony did not warrant a new trial because there was no prejudice from admission of the testimony