2 total
Applications challenging prior judicial decisions struck as collateral attacks and barred by absolute judicial immunity.
The self-represented applicant brought two applications seeking to challenge prior judicial decisions and seeking the recusal of a Regional Senior Justice in an underlying civil action.
The respondents moved to strike the applications.
The applicant sought a last-minute adjournment citing illness, which the court denied due to a lack of cogent medical evidence and a history of delay.
The court granted the respondents' motions, dismissing the applications as impermissible collateral attacks and an abuse of process.
The court also found the claims against the Attorney General and the Regional Senior Justice disclosed no reasonable cause of action due to judicial independence and absolute judicial immunity.
Foundational expert data is not discoverable under Rule 31.06(3) prior to the delivery of an expert report.
In a subrogated action for property damage caused by a leaking reverse osmosis system, the defendant Aquasoft moved to compel answers to undertakings and refusals, and for disclosure of foundational information relied upon by the plaintiff's experts.
The plaintiff cross-moved to compel Aquasoft to produce a representative for discovery and for a further and better affidavit of documents.
The court dismissed the defendant's request for foundational expert information, holding that under Rule 31.06(3), only findings, opinions, and conclusions are required at the discovery stage, while foundational data is not required until an expert report is served under Rule 53.03(2.1).
The court ordered the plaintiff to answer certain undertakings and refusals, and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion, ordering Aquasoft to produce a representative for discovery and serve a further and better affidavit of documents regarding pre-2014 invoices.
Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
