The defendants brought a motion for leave to conduct a further examination for discovery of the plaintiff, Abdullah Abdulwasi, after the action had been set down for trial.
They argued that the plaintiff's recent surgery indicated a substantial deterioration in his health, necessitating a second in-person discovery to assess his injuries and damage claim.
The plaintiff opposed, asserting his condition was consistent with prior circumstances and offered written interrogatories and a defence medical examination.
The court denied the defendants' motion, finding they failed to demonstrate a "substantial or unexpected change in circumstances" or that the plaintiff's condition had "deteriorated substantially" as required by the Rules of Civil Procedure.
The court emphasized proportionality and efficiency, concluding that written questions and a defence medical examination would better serve the purpose of discovery than a second in-person examination, especially since the plaintiff was not in a position to answer "why" his condition allegedly worsened.
