Leave to appeal granted due to conflicting authorities on the evidentiary basis required for litigation privilege.
The plaintiff sought leave to appeal a decision regarding the commencement date of litigation privilege over certain documents in an accident benefits dispute.
The plaintiff argued that the judge erred in accepting a bald assertion by the defendant's lawyer as sufficient evidence to meet the dominant purpose test for litigation privilege.
The court granted leave to appeal, finding that the decision conflicted with established authorities and that there was good reason to doubt its correctness, satisfying the test under Rule 62.02(4)(a) and (b).
ODCDivisional CourtSep 8, 2003
