This endorsement addresses the costs of a successful motion by the plaintiff for the production of an investigative and surveillance report, which the defendant had resisted on grounds of privilege.
The plaintiff sought costs on a partial indemnity basis, while the defendant sought set-off costs for a prior motion.
The court found the plaintiff entirely successful on the production issue, which involved a novel point of law.
The court rejected the defendant's argument that the plaintiff, a lawyer represented by counsel from his own firm, should not recover costs, deeming it speculative and inconsistent with cost award principles.
The court determined that the defendant's steadfast maintenance of privilege was the principal cause of delay and the necessity of the motions.
The plaintiff was awarded costs on a partial indemnity basis.