What do these questions have to do with control of documentation? That's why internal audits should never be too informal. There is always a need to balance formality and control. I don't know if it is the case here, but, had the auditee been provided with an agenda for the audit, he would be aware of the time and scope of the audit.
My thoughts, too, Sidney, on the first comment!
One aspect of internal audits which is often modeled too closely on external audit techniques, is that of planning and preparation. Rarely, (except with the relatively recent stage 1 audit) does a CB auditor get to meet, face to face with the client/auditee and solicit their support through the planning and preparation of the audit - to enable a greater buy, through focusing on the validation of process/compliance etc.
I'd going out on a limb by suggesting that, if such 'resistance' had been encountered in a face to face situation, the issue might have been headed off - or at least brought to someone's attention for input on the purpose of the audit etc.
Perhaps agendas and scope notification are part of a good audit process, but they don't encourage management support! I believe there's a world of difference between formality and control, through such devices, and auditors' behaviours which engender understanding, support and active participation.
Another feature which is sad, but never-the-less true, is that management don't get excited about document control, as much as some of us know it's important to cover, during an audit. It doesn't push the right buttons for them! Unless this was an imperative for some reason, I'd shrug it off for another day!