R. Yehia

The plaintiffs brought a motion to vary timetable orders to extend the set down date for trial in an action concerning alleged manufacturing defects in water pipes.

The action had been delayed for several years, primarily due to the plaintiffs' failure to answer undertakings from discoveries.

Applying the Reid factors, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide an adequate explanation for the delay, did not demonstrate inadvertence, failed to bring the motion promptly, and did not rebut the presumption of prejudice to the defendants.

The motion was dismissed.

The moving party brought a motion to compel the responding party to produce pre-July 2015 plant data and answer written discovery questions pursuant to a prior consent order.

The responding party brought a cross-motion to compel the moving party to answer written questions.

The court ordered the responding party to produce the plant data, with the moving party to pay 50% of the production costs up to $25,000.

The court also interpreted the prior consent order broadly, directing both parties to answer all refused written discovery questions relating to the amended pleadings.

The plaintiff general contractor brought a motion to refer its action against a performance bond surety to a Master, to be tried alongside a related construction lien action commenced by a subcontractor.

The defendant surety consented to the relief.

The court granted the motion, finding that a joint trial before the Master was the most efficient procedure and would prevent inconsistent findings.