The plaintiff moved for an order requiring the defendant to produce a second corporate representative for examination for discovery.
The plaintiff had already commenced the examination of the defendant's current General Manager, who was not employed by the defendant at the time of the incident but had informed himself by speaking with the proposed second representative.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the first representative was unable to answer questions or that the plaintiff would be deprived of a meaningful discovery without examining the second representative.
