The third party insurer brought a motion under Rule 31.10 for leave to examine the plaintiffs as non-parties in each other's related actions regarding their observations of the other occupants during a motor vehicle accident.
The plaintiffs had previously refused these questions on the basis of relevance to their individual actions, and a prior motion to compel answers was dismissed with an invitation to bring the motion under Rule 31.10.
The court granted the motion, finding that the questions were relevant to damages and credibility, and that the plaintiffs' narrow approach to relevance frustrated the discovery process and the principle of proportionality.
