The plaintiff sought an order to exclude co-defendant police officers from each other's examinations for discovery and to prohibit communication between them until the conclusion of discoveries.
The plaintiff argued this was necessary due to a risk of tailored or parroted testimony, citing the officers' prior conduct in criminal proceedings where they admitted to obstruction of justice.
The defendants opposed, asserting their right to attend and arguing no sufficient risk of tailoring existed.
The court granted the exclusion order, finding a clear risk of tailored evidence given the officers' past dishonesty, and determined that the ends of justice required the exclusion to ensure fair examinations, despite the logistical challenges for common counsel.
