J. John Vettese

The moving party, a corporate defendant, brought a motion for a complex protective order before producing an affidavit of documents or reviewing its own relevant documents.

The plaintiff consented, but the self-represented co-defendant did not respond.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature and the proposed order over-broad.

The court noted that the moving party failed to identify specific harm associated with the disclosure of particular documents and relied on sweeping generalizations instead of the existing protections under the Rules of Civil Procedure.

The plaintiff brought a motion to bifurcate a motor vehicle accident trial, strike the jury notice, and bar a defence medical examination.

The defendant cross-moved to compel the medical examination.

The court granted leave under Rule 48.04 for both parties to bring their motions.

The court dismissed the motion to bifurcate, finding it lacked jurisdiction under Rule 6.1.01 because the defendant had withdrawn its consent.

The court ordered the plaintiff to attend the defence medical examination to ensure trial fairness.

The motion to strike the jury notice was dismissed based on the 'wait and see' approach, as it was premature to determine if the jury would be prejudiced by the plaintiff suing her deceased husband's estate or confused by the engineering evidence.

Despite the defendant's success on the motions, costs of $5,000 were awarded to the plaintiff because the motions were necessitated by the defendant's late withdrawal of consent to bifurcation.