during discovery, and thus, were not substantially justified. ¶54 The trial court has discretion to control discovery and determine from the circumstances of the case whether the parties have complied with discovery requests. In re H.D. (1992), 256 Mont. 70, 77, 844 P.2d 114, 119. We will reverse that determination only if the substantial rights of the opposing party have been so materially affected as to allow a possible miscarriage of justice. In re H.D., 256 Mont, at 77, 844 P.2d at 119. A court may award costs under Rule 37(a)(4), M.R.Civ.P., for expenses incurred in relation to litigating motions for a protective order. If the motion is denied, the court shall require the moving party to pay the opposing party “the reasonable expenses incurred N.J. 1990) 135 F.R.D. 101, 104-105 (<HOLDING>); Morton Intern, Inc. v. General Acc. Ins. Co.
holding that the plain meaning of the uim policy language was clear and not contrary to public policy holding that absent follow form language provision that excess policy would continue as underlying policy did not impose coverage as provided in underlying policy holding that the drafting history of operative language from a general liability policy is discoverable when ambiguity in policy has not been resolved holding that a standard employers liability policy is not an ocean marine policy holding claim for injuries arising out of use of truck and not from negligent supervision excluded from coverage by auto exclusion in commercial general liability policy no claim that language in policy was ambiguous or unclear