Frederick Philip Carpenter

The plaintiff brought a motion for leave under Rule 48.04(1) to compel further discovery and production of documents from the defendants, specifically seeking unredacted daytimers and a fourth re-attendance for discovery.

The court granted leave to bring the motion but dismissed the substantive requests, noting the long-standing knowledge of the daytimers, the imminent 20-day trial, and the unreasonableness of ordering a further re-attendance at this late stage.

Costs of $5,000 were awarded to the responding defendants.

The plaintiff brought a motion for various procedural relief, including leave to bring the motion after setting the action down for trial, further examinations for discovery, and further documentary production.

The court granted leave under Rule 48.04(1) due to substantial amendments to the pleadings.

The court ordered further examinations of certain defendants and non-parties, and ordered the defendants to serve further and better supplementary affidavits of documents.

Timetables were set for expert reports and further motions.

Costs of the motion were awarded to the plaintiff in the cause, while costs of a prior motion were awarded to the defendants in the cause.

The moving party defendants brought a motion to settle a previous order, fix a timetable, and order reciprocal property inspections.

The court found that the reciprocal inspections had already been consented to in a prior order and through undertakings, and ordered them to proceed.

The court also addressed the costs of a previous motion, finding divided success and ordering that each party bear their own costs.

A motion was brought seeking various forms of disclosure and re-attendance at discovery.

Some matters were resolved by consent, including a defendant municipality serving a supplementary affidavit of documents and a representative attending discovery for up to 2 hours.

The court addressed the requirement for leave to bring the contested parts of the motion, denying leave for most requests as they did not fall under Rule 48.04(2)(b).

For the remaining contested relief concerning a co-defendant's supplementary affidavit, the court declined to order it as the co-defendant agreed to comply with their obligations.

The scope of the municipality's re-attendance was limited to documents in the supplementary affidavit.

The court also ordered the moving party to pay installment costs thrown away for amendments to the statement of claim to the responding parties.