The parties jointly sought directions regarding the order in which two motions should be heard in a tender dispute action.
The plaintiff sought production of tender documents and related discovery concerning the defendant municipality’s historical tender practices, while the defendant brought a summary judgment motion arguing the claim could be resolved as a legal issue based on explicit tender terms.
The court held that the summary judgment motion was not framed solely as a question of law and that determining the legal issue could require a factual matrix concerning past tender practices.
Requiring the plaintiff to respond to the summary judgment motion without disclosure could be prejudicial.
The court directed that the plaintiff’s discovery motion proceed first.
