In a medical malpractice action alleging lack of consent to a tubal ligation, the defendant physicians brought a motion under Rule 31.10 to examine the plaintiff's husband as a non-party.
The plaintiff opposed the motion, arguing that her husband had already provided written answers and that other parties present during the consent discussions had been examined.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff's inability to recall certain discussions did not amount to a constructive refusal, and the defendants failed to establish they were unable to obtain the information from other sources.
