The plaintiff brought a motion seeking answers to undertakings, questions taken under advisement, and questions refused during the examination for discovery of the defendant's representative.
The action concerned an accident where the plaintiff's vehicle allegedly dropped into a hole in the road.
The court applied the relevance test under Rule 31.06 and proportionality principles under Rule 29.2.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Master ruled on each contested question, ordering some to be answered (e.g., reason for representative selection, statutory duty to maintain streets, specific practice manuals, cause of hole) and refusing others (e.g., overly broad requests for manuals, questions about training or budgets not pleaded).
Some undertakings were confirmed as answered, and others were ordered to be completed by consent.
