The defendant, a retired tax lawyer suffering from a debilitating medical condition, brought a motion to be excused from oral examination for discovery and to proceed by written interrogatories instead.
The plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that oral discovery was necessary given the allegations of professional negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and dishonesty.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that while the defendant's medical condition was serious, the evidence did not establish that oral discovery, if properly managed with accommodations such as short sessions and frequent breaks, would cause physical or psychological harm.
