The defendants sought to re-schedule a motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice action.
The plaintiffs resisted, arguing for further discovery, mandatory mediation, and a right to a trial in open court, and also raised a potential conflict of interest concerning the defendants' counsel.
The court granted the re-scheduling, finding that the plaintiffs had ample time over five years to pursue procedural rights and obtain expert evidence, which was still lacking.
The court emphasized that there is no absolute right to a civil trial, particularly when expert evidence is essential but absent in a medical malpractice claim.
Concerns regarding mediation and counsel disqualification were dismissed as untimely and tactical.
