The defendants brought motions to compel answers to refusals and undertakings given during the plaintiff’s examination for discovery in a civil action alleging negligent investigation, defamation, abuse of statutory powers, breach of fiduciary duty, and mental distress arising from an erroneous police press release naming the plaintiff in relation to child pornography charges.
The court considered the relevance and proportionality of various discovery questions concerning related defamation actions, settlement amounts, the plaintiff’s health and reputation, his relationship with a convicted roommate, and mitigation of damages.
The court held that certain questions relating to settlements in related actions and mitigation were relevant and should be answered, while many others were properly refused as irrelevant or disproportionate.
The plaintiff was ordered to re-attend discovery to answer specific questions and to satisfy outstanding undertakings within 60 days.
