The plaintiffs sued the defendants for damages arising from mould in their residential unit.
During the litigation, both sides brought procedural motions.
The defendants sought further disclosure and to schedule continued examinations for discovery, which was largely resolved on consent.
The plaintiff, Aparna Sanwalka, sought accommodations for her continued examination for discovery due to alleged mental health conditions, including receiving questions 48 hours in advance.
The court dismissed the plaintiff's motion for accommodations, finding insufficient medical evidence to justify departing from the standard oral examination format under Rule 31.02.
