In a professional negligence action against a chartered accounting firm arising from alleged failure to detect employee fraud, the plaintiff moved for further production of the defendant’s records after discoveries had already taken place.
The request relied on a new expert report asserting that a professional accountant required access to the complete set of documents and correspondence relating to the defendant’s engagements with the plaintiff from 2001 to 2009.
The court held that the requested production largely duplicated issues that could have been addressed on the earlier production motion and amounted to a fishing expedition.
The moving party failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances or identify specific deficiencies in the existing production.
The motion for further production was dismissed and costs were awarded to the responding party.
