The plaintiff moved for leave to examine a non-party, his former spouse, for discovery, and for an order compelling the defendants to answer questions refused at their discoveries.
The court dismissed the motion for leave to examine the non-party, finding that the defendants had provided a 'will say' statement that satisfied the requirement to avoid trial by surprise.
The court also dismissed the motion to compel answers to refusals, finding that the requested will was not relevant and the request for names of persons the defendants had spoken to about the litigation was overly broad.
