During a family law proceeding, a non-party corporation sought clarification regarding whether earlier disclosure and examination orders were stayed pending a forthcoming motion to set them aside.
The court considered whether it retained jurisdiction to grant or clarify a stay despite an appeal having been initiated, examining conflicting authorities interpreting Rule 63.02.
Adopting the view that the amended rule grants concurrent jurisdiction to both the trial court and the appeal court to grant a stay, the court held it retained jurisdiction.
Applying a balance of convenience analysis, the court found that requiring the non-party to comply with onerous disclosure obligations before the motion was determined would cause disproportionate prejudice.
The court ordered a stay of the prior orders until the motion to set them aside or change them is decided.
