The respondent hospital brought a motion to compel the applicant physician to answer questions and produce documents regarding his financial income, which he had refused during cross-examination.
The cross-examination occurred in the context of the physician's motion to stay the hospital's decision to suspend his privileges.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the physician did not allege financial harm in his stay motion, relying instead on loss of professional satisfaction and reputation.
Therefore, the financial information sought was irrelevant to the issues of irreparable harm and balance of convenience.
