M. Byers

The applicant brought a motion for production of documents.

During a case conference, the respondents' counsel advised of a scheduling conflict and requested time to ascertain the position of third parties.

The court found the third parties' involvement unnecessary for the motion, adjourned the motion by one day to accommodate counsel's schedule, and set a timetable for the respondents' factum.

The applicant requested an adjournment of the application to bring a motion for production of further documentation after discovering the respondents made payments to third parties following a previously ordered injunction.

The court scheduled the motion for production of documents and set a timetable for the exchange of materials and cross-examinations.

The court also noted that if third parties consent, an order may be submitted to have the funds paid into court.

The applicant sought directions at a case conference regarding the respondents' failure to produce bank records as required by a prior court order.

The applicant claimed no statements were produced, while the respondents claimed full compliance.

The court directed the respondents to produce the unredacted bank statements relating to the receipt and disbursement of the funds in issue by a specified date, noting that a judge at a case conference has jurisdiction to make procedural and interlocutory orders under Rule 50.13(6).

Rogers brought an Application seeking the return of $876,095.04 allegedly paid in error to the respondents.

At a case conference, the respondents objected to the presiding judge scheduling or hearing the Application, arguing the judge was acting as a case management judge under Rule 77.06.

The court held that Rule 77 did not apply but voluntarily declined to hear the Application.

The court proceeded to set a timetable for the Application and scheduled the respondents' motion to consolidate the Application with an existing action between the parties.