The municipal defendant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order permitting the plaintiffs to examine a second municipal employee for discovery.
The underlying negligence action arose from a fatal motor vehicle accident allegedly caused by icy road conditions and inadequate road maintenance.
The motions judge had ordered the production of a patrol employee for discovery despite the municipality already producing a representative and while undertakings remained outstanding.
The court held that there was serious reason to doubt the correctness of the order because there was no evidence the first representative could not provide satisfactory answers through undertakings and the legal test for permitting multiple examinations may have been misapplied.
Given conflicting interpretations of Rule 31.03(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the absence of appellate guidance, the issue was found to be of public importance.
