The plaintiff sought leave to conduct an examination for discovery of the defendant after setting the action down for trial, which requires leave under Rule 48.04(1).
The court addressed conflicting judicial approaches regarding the test for granting such leave, ultimately preferring the broader "interest of justice" test over the "substantial or unexpected change in circumstances" test.
Despite some plaintiff delay and an inaccurate certification form, leave was granted as there was no prejudice to the defendant, and discovery is a crucial step in litigation.
