E. Wagner

The defendants brought a motion to compel the plaintiffs to answer questions refused or taken under advisement during examinations for discovery in a $20 million road construction dispute.

The central issue in the action is responsibility for excess rock excavation.

The court dismissed most of the defendants' requests, finding that questions about a 1994 litigation between the parties were irrelevant and that the plaintiffs' answers regarding their blasting subcontractor were sufficient and proportionate.

The plaintiffs were ordered to provide a written answer regarding how they would have bid the job differently only if their expert report provided sufficient data to do so.

The applicant, charged with multiple counts of fraud related to bank loans, brought a Rowbotham application seeking a conditional stay of proceedings pending the appointment of state-funded counsel.

He argued he was indigent and had been denied Legal Aid.

The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's extensive business background and education made him capable of representing himself, meaning his right to a fair trial would not be compromised.

Furthermore, the court found the applicant failed to prove indigence, noting inconsistencies in evidence regarding his separation from his wife, his failure to pursue his share of the matrimonial home proceeds, and his lack of adequate financial disclosure.

The plaintiff brought a Rule 30.10 motion seeking production of portions of a Special Investigations Unit investigation file arising from a motor vehicle collision involving a police vehicle.

Relevance of the requested materials was conceded, but the Attorney General on behalf of the SIU opposed disclosure on the basis of witness confidentiality and the exceptional nature of non-party production.

The court reviewed the sealed SIU materials and applied the fairness test under Rule 30.10, balancing confidentiality interests against the plaintiff’s ability to fairly prepare for trial on the contested issue of liability.

Because the police materials already produced to the plaintiff were heavily redacted and prevented effective investigation and contact with a key civilian witness, the court found it would be unfair for the plaintiff to proceed without certain SIU documents.

The court ordered production of specific investigator summaries and notes relating to officer witnesses and one civilian witness but declined to order production of audio recordings and other investigative materials.