The plaintiffs in a professional negligence action against former accountants moved for leave to conduct an examination for discovery after the action had already been set down for trial.
The court rejected a rigid requirement that a moving party must show a substantial or unexpected change in circumstances under rule 48.04(1), holding instead that the just order in the circumstances governs.
The court emphasized the importance of pre-trial disclosure, the absence of any express waiver of discovery rights, and the responding defendant's default in serving an affidavit of documents.
Because the action was not trial-ready and no prejudice or wasted court time would result, leave to examine the individual defendant for discovery was granted.
