¶53 Travelers asked the District Court to reconsider its award of fees relating to the protective order after the District Court ultimately determined on summary judgment that the CGL policy’s pollution exclusion’s language was unambiguous and thereby rendered extrinsic evidence inadmissible. Travelers argued that fees are warranted under Rule 37(a)(4), M.R.Civ.P., only if the losing party’s position was not “substantially justified” and the District Court’s ruling on summary judgment verified the justification for its earlier motion for a protective order. The District Court concluded, however, that Travelers’s concerns of costs related to searching for and producing the drafting history were not appropriate matters for a protective or America (N.J. 1993), 629 A.2d 831, 847-48 (<HOLDING>). Further, the District Court found Travelers’s
holding that the release of carbon monoxide into an apartment is not the type of environmental pollution contemplated by the pollution exclusion clause holding that the drafting history of the sudden and accidental exception to the pollution exclusion clause of a cgl policy facilitated an interpretation of sudden to include unexpected holding that the possibility of a mistaken understanding of the phrase preponderance of the evidence on the part of the jury is too remote to constitute plain error when counsel gave the jury an accurate explanation of the legal meaning of the phrase in his closing argument and that meaning is consistent with the common understanding of the words in the phrase holding that the court could review the south dakota supreme courts interpretation of its unemployment compensation tax statute because its analysis depended entirely on its understanding of the meaning of futa and the first amendment holding that the pollution exclusions drafting and regulatory history enhanced a fuller understanding of the meaning of its terms