In a wrongful dismissal action with a counterclaim alleging conversion of drilling equipment, the plaintiff sought leave under Rule 36.01(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure to examine two non‑party witnesses before trial in order to preserve their testimony.
The witnesses were elderly and resided outside the jurisdiction, and one had a history of medical issues.
The court considered the discretionary factors under Rule 36.01(3), including convenience, risk of unavailability, and the uncertain timing of trial.
Finding no prejudice to the defendants and recognizing the prudence of preserving evidence while memories were fresh, the court granted leave for the videotaped examinations before trial.
