The plaintiff brought a motion seeking an order to exclude co-defendants from attending each other's examinations for discovery or reviewing their transcripts, arguing it was necessary to prevent the tailoring of evidence, particularly given the anticipated credibility issues.
The court considered factors such as common interests, common counsel, the scope of examinations, and the centrality of credibility.
While acknowledging credibility would be an issue, the court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a real and substantial probability that the discovery process would be compromised.
This was especially true given that two key defendants had already been extensively cross-examined on substantive affidavits without any evidence of tailoring or parroting, and their co-parties had access to these transcripts.
The motion for an exclusion order was dismissed, and the defendants were awarded partial indemnity costs.