The appellants appealed a case conference endorsement and order of a master concerning discovery scheduling and responsibility for costs after examinations for discovery were cancelled due to hazardous winter weather conditions.
The appellants argued that a discovery plan under Rule 29.1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure superseded the timetable, that sanctions under Rule 34.15 applied to counsel’s non‑attendance, and that the master failed to properly consider weather evidence.
The court held that no valid written discovery plan existed and that the master’s timetable governed the order of examinations.
Rule 34.15 applies only to the conduct of the person being examined, not to counsel conducting the examination.
Finding no error of law, misapprehension of evidence, or improper exercise of discretion, the court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the master’s conclusions.
