The plaintiff appealed a Master's order requiring her psychological expert to produce his handwritten notes, questionnaires, and answers from his assessment of the plaintiff.
The expert had refused to produce the raw data, claiming it was proprietary.
The Master ordered production on an undertakings and refusals motion without notice to the expert.
The Superior Court allowed the appeal, finding the Master erred in law by ordering relief against a non-party without giving him an opportunity to be heard, which violated the principle of audi alteram partem.
The proper procedure was a motion for production from a non-party under Rule 30.10.
The court varied the order to require production only of documents the expert did not object to producing, leaving the defendants to bring a proper Rule 30.10 motion if they wished to pursue the disputed records.