The plaintiffs brought a motion under Rule 39.02 of the Rules of Civil Procedure seeking leave to file an affidavit and expert handwriting evidence after cross-examinations, in connection with a pending motion to set aside a default judgment.
The defendants opposed the motion.
The court applied a flexible, contextual approach to Rule 39.02, considering the relevance and responsiveness of the evidence, potential non-compensable prejudice, and the explanation for the delay.
While the evidence was relevant and responsive, the court found that granting leave would cause prejudice to the defendants, necessitate further adjournments, and was inconsistent with the principle of proportionality, especially in a simplified procedure case.
The plaintiffs' motion was dismissed, and the defendants were awarded costs.