The defendant brought a motion to compel the plaintiff to answer follow-up questions from discovery undertakings, produce an insurance policy, and produce instruction letters sent to its expert witness.
The court held that the defendant did not require leave under Rule 48.04 to bring the motion.
The court ordered the plaintiff to answer one of the two follow-up questions and to produce the insurance policy, as it was a subrogated claim and the policy was relevant.
However, the court dismissed the request for the expert's instruction letters, finding they remained protected by litigation privilege and the expert reports already met the requirements of Rule 53.03(2.1).
