The defendant moved to compel the plaintiff to re-attend for a continuing examination for discovery after undertakings were answered in a personal injury action arising from a motor vehicle accident.
The court held Rule 48.04 did not require leave because the matter had not yet been placed on a trial list and there was no evidence the moving party had consented to that placement.
Applying the framework governing follow-up discovery after undertakings, the court held there is no absolute right to compel re-attendance and the moving party must show the answers genuinely give rise to appropriate follow-up questions that serve a useful discovery purpose.
Because the motion record did not identify the proposed questions or explain why further questioning was necessary, the motion was dismissed, and the court stated it would have denied leave under Rule 31.03(1) if sought.
