Kevin Butler

The plaintiffs brought a motion arising from a discovery dispute, seeking to exclude one co-defendant from the virtual discovery of the other and requesting costs thrown away for previously cancelled discoveries.

The court found that the risks of improper collaboration are heightened during virtual discoveries when co-defendants are in the same location without counsel present.

The court ordered that the co-defendants be examined in the absence of each other.

The request for costs thrown away was denied due to both counsel's failure to communicate effectively and agree on a discovery plan.

The applicant sought court approval for a proposed $6,000 settlement regarding a dog bite injury sustained by a seven-year-old minor.

The court identified several deficiencies in the application record, including improper service on the unrepresented respondent, insufficient evidence of the settlement terms, incorrect calculation of the contingency fee, and failure to request an order dispensing with an oral hearing.

The court directed the applicant to file additional materials to address these deficiencies before the settlement could be approved.