In a wrongful dismissal action, the plaintiff sought a timetabling order for a pending motion and an order to examine the defendant's CEO as a witness on that motion under Rule 39.03.
The defendant's pending motion sought to substitute another corporate representative for discovery, arguing that examining the CEO would be oppressive.
Associate Justice Josefo declined to issue a timetabling order, noting that counsel should cooperate or rely on the timelines in the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court also refused the request to examine the CEO, finding it to be an abuse of process and an attempt to circumvent the very issue to be decided in the upcoming substitution motion.
