The proposed intervener law firm sought leave to intervene in a motion for leave to appeal an order requiring the production of its privileged documents based on an implied joint retainer.
The moving party argued it had a direct interest in the subject matter and could be adversely affected by new grounds of appeal challenging its conduct.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that intervention on a leave to appeal motion should be rare and extraordinary, and that the proposed intervener's submissions largely duplicated those of the appellant.
The request to intervene in the appeal itself was adjourned pending the outcome of the leave motion.
