The defendant insurer, Pembridge, moved to compel the production of transcribed statements given by a co-defendant and a non-party to their insurer following a fatal motor vehicle collision.
Pembridge argued that the co-defendant's poor memory at discovery overcame litigation privilege.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that Pembridge failed to establish that there was no reasonable alternative form of evidence, as it had not questioned the co-defendant at discovery or attempted to examine the non-party.
The court also noted that summaries of the statements had already been provided.
