COURT FILE NO.: CV-17-570250; CV-17-579409
MOTION HEARD: 2022-04-11
REASONS RELEASED: 2022-08-02
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO
BETWEEN:
ANMAR MECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS LTD.
Plaintiff
- and-
BAFFINLAND IRON MINES CORPORATION, in its capacity as General Partner of Baffinland Iron Mines LP
Defendant
-and-
AON REED STENHOUSE INC.
Third Party
BEFORE: ASSOCIATE JUSTICE McGRAW
COUNSEL: P. Roberts and T. Kruger
Email: proberts@lawsonlundell.com
-for the Defendant Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation (“BIM”)
J. Marin
Email: jim@marinlitigation.ca
-for the Plaintiff, Anmar Mechanical and Electrical Contractors Ltd. (“Anmar”)
J. Jones and L. Pece
Email: jjones@joneslitigation.com
-for the Non-Party Malik, Giffen and Burnett Claims Consultants Inc. (“MGB”)
M. Evans and N. Tzannidakis
Email: mark.evans@dentons.com
-for the Third Party Aon Reed Stenhouse Inc. (“Aon”)
L. Dizgun and A. Fischer
Email: dizgun@btlegal.ca
-for Anmar in the Matarazzo Action
D. Stoddard
Email: dstoddard@rarlitigation.com
-for Lloyd’s Underwriters (“Lloyd’s”)
REASONS RELEASED: August 2, 2022
Reasons For Endorsement
I. Introduction
[1] BIM brings 2 motions: i.) to compel Aon to answer refusals arising from examinations for discovery; and ii.) to compel MGB to produce its complete adjuster’s file and the adjuster to attend an examination.
II. Background
[2] BIM operates an iron ore mine and related facilities known as the Mary River Project (the “Project”) on Baffin Island in Nunavut. Anmar was contracted by BIM on April 9, 2014 to perform conveyor and shiploader installation work at the Project. On April 15, 2015, a fire broke out in a temporary structure at the Project owned by Anmar which damaged or destroyed Anmar’s and BIM’s equipment.
[3] Pursuant to BIM’s contract with Anmar, BIM was required to obtain insurance on Anmar’s equipment used at the Project. At the time of the fire, BIM and Anmar were insured under a Builders’ Risk Insurance Policy (the “Policy”) with Westport Insurance Corporation, Allianz Global Risks U.S. Company, XL Catlin Canada Inc., QBE Services Inc. (a Lloyds Syndicate) and Zurich Insurance Company of Canada (collectively, the “Insurers”). The Policy was placed through Aon as broker pursuant to a Service Fee Agreement with BIM dated April 1, 2014 whereby Aon agreed to provide advisory and consulting services including insurance procurement and risk management advice. Anmar also had its own policy covering its equipment with QBE (the “Contractor’s Equipment Policy”).
[4] The Insurers appointed Shawn Burnett of MGB as independent adjuster with respect to the fire. BIM and Anmar made claims under the Policy. Following MGB’s adjusting of the loss, BIM and Anmar signed full and final Fire Proofs of Loss confirming their acceptance of amounts paid to both representing their insurable fire related losses.
[5] The Policy did not cover the entire loss claimed by Anmar. Anmar commenced this action by Statement of Claim issued on February 25, 2017 seeking to recover portions of its uninsured loss and related expenses in the amount of $12,000,000. Among other things, Anmar alleges that BIM failed to obtain sufficient insurance coverage. Anmar previously commenced an action against BIM in 2016 for unpaid amounts and reimbursement for tools left at the Project (the “2016 Action”). BIM delivered its Statement of Defence and Counterclaim in this action on April 24, 2017 alleging that an Anmar employee was responsible for starting the fire. On May 2, 2017, BIM commenced a Third Party Claim against Aon for contribution and indemnity with respect to the amounts claimed by Anmar.
[6] By Statement of Claim issued on July 21, 2017, Anmar commenced an action against Lloyd’s Underwriters for coverage under the Contractor’s Equipment Policy. On November 2, 2018, Lloyd’s Underwriters commenced a Third Party Claim against the other four Insurers for contribution and indemnity with respect to this action and the 2016 Action. As set out in my Order and Endorsement dated April 11, 2022, Anmar’s claim against Lloyd’s was discontinued on consent with the parties making costs submissions while Lloyd’s Third Party Claim against the four other Insurers continues.
[7] This matter first came before me at a case conference on December 20, 2021 to speak to the present and other potential motions. Subsequent case conferences were held on January 21 and February 7, 2022. A potential motion for the use of the transcripts from Anmar’s related action against the Matarazzo Defendants was resolved by the parties as reflected in my consent Order dated February 7, 2022. The parties were able to reduce some of the refusals, however, no agreement was reached with respect to production of the adjuster’s file.
III. The Law and Analysis
Refusals Motion
[8] Rule 31.06(1) provides that a person examined for discovery shall answer, to the best of his or her knowledge, information and belief, any proper question relevant to any matter in issue in the action.
[9] Rule 29.2.03 sets out the proportionality factors which apply to oral and documentary discovery:
(1) In making a determination as to whether a party or other person must answer a question or produce a document, the court shall consider whether,
(a) the time required for the party or other person to answer the question or produce the document would be unreasonable;
(b) the expense associated with answering the question or producing the document would be unjustified;
(c) requiring the party or other person to answer the question or produce the document would cause him or her undue prejudice;
(d) requiring the party or other person to answer the question or produce the document would unduly interfere with the orderly progress of the action; and
(e) the information or the document is readily available to the party requesting it from another source.
(2) In addition to the considerations listed in subrule (1), in determining whether to order a party or other person to produce one or more documents, the court shall consider whether such an order would result in an excessive volume of documents required to be produced by the party or other person.
[10] Discovery questions must be relevant to the issues as defined by the pleadings such that they have probative value and adequately contribute to the determination of the truth or falsity of a material fact (Ontario v. Rothmans Inc., 2011 ONSC 2504; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Deloitte & Touche, 2013 ONSC 917). Overbroad and speculative discovery and “fishing expeditions” are not permitted (Rothmans at paras. 129 and 154-157). Questions are relevant if they could elicit a response that the trial judge could rely on to resolve a matter in issue (Business Development Bank of Canada, v. IMEX Systems Inc., 2021 ONSC 6171 at para. 26).
[11] Rules 1.04(1) and Rule 1.04(1.1) are primary considerations on any undertakings and refusals motion. Rule 1.04(1) provides that the Rules of Civil Procedure shall be liberally construed to secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination of every civil proceeding on its merits. Rule 1.04(1.1) requires the court to make orders and give directions that are proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues and to the amount involved.
[12] BIM seeks answers to 15 refusals from the examination for discovery of Ryan Amaral on behalf of Aon conducted on October 6, 2021. My dispositions with respect to the refusals are set out below.
[13] Refusal 1 – BIM’s counsel asked Mr. Amaral “for a practical definition of what contract reviews entail”. Aon submits that the definition of “Contract Reviews” in the Service Fee Agreement is a complete answer and that BIM is asking an improper legal question which Mr. Amaral as a lay-person is not required to answer (Bot Construction (Ontario) Ltd. v. Dumoulin, 2010 ONSC 6569 at para. 10). Under “Contract Reviews” in the Service Fee Agreement it states that “Aon will assist Client in reviewing insurance obligations in contracts and advise Client relative to insurance obligations and the effects of said insurance obligations will have on Client’s risk and insurance program”.
[14] In my view, BIM is not asking for a legal interpretation of “Contract Reviews”. In answering the question before the one in dispute, Mr. Amaral agreed that the description of “Contracts Review” in the Service Fee Agreement “accurately sets out the service Aon intends to provide”. While the disputed question could have been worded more clearly, by asking for a “practical definition” of what a contract review “entails”, BIM’s counsel was asking a factual question following from the previous question, namely, what Aon actually does in a contract review. Mr. Amaral was not being asked to give his legal opinion or interpretation of, for example, whether Aon satisfied its contractual obligations to perform “Contract Reviews” under the Service Fee Agreement. The disputed question does not call for Mr. Amaral to give an interpretation of words and phrases in a statute or a personal legal opinion as set out in the cases cited by Aon (Paul v. The Corporation of the Township of Madawaska, 2021 ONSC 1689 at paras. 47-48; Hunter v. Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, 2013 ONSC at para. 17). Further, contrary to Aon’s submissions, the question is not fully answered by the definition of “Claims Services” which was addressed in the previous question. Rather, what Aon actually does in a contract review is relevant to BIM’s allegations in the Third Party Claim regarding’s Aon’s review of the Policy and within the knowledge, information and/or belief of Mr. Amaral.
[15] Further, to the extent to which this can be characterized as a legal question, it is a long-held principle that where a party’s legal position is relevant to issues in an action, the party is obligated to provide it (Six Nations of the Grand River Indian Band v. Canada (Attorney General), 2000 CanLII 26988 (Ont. S.C.J., Div. Ct.); Rothman’s at para. 129). More specifically, there is an important distinction: while lay witnesses are not required to answer legal questions or provide legal opinions, parties are required to provide their positions on legal issues which are relevant to the action. This is typically done by way of undertaking.
[16] Accordingly, I conclude that Aon shall answer this Refusal within 45 days.
[17] Refusals 2-4 – Aon refuses to answer these 3 questions on the basis that they are irrelevant and improper speculative questions (Rothmans at para. 129).
[18] With respect to Refusal 2, Mr. Amaral was asked if it was part of Aon’s contract review “in situations like this” to tell the client that they signed a contract that does not entirely/squarely fall within the insurance coverage they already have and they need to amend the contract. The question specifically refers to the present situation regarding BIM and Aon, not a hypothetical or speculative situation. I am also satisfied that the question is relevant to BIM’s claims against Aon regarding contract review. Aon appears to take the position that the reference to “situations like this” does not refer to the present circumstances involving BIM and the Service Fee Agreement. If Mr. Amaral disagrees with the underlying assumption that this is an accurate description of the present situation related to Aon’s review of BIM’s contracts, then he may say so. However, this is not a proper basis to refuse to answer the question at all. Aon shall answer this Refusal within 45 days.
[19] Similarly, in Refusal 3, BIM’s counsel asked “with respect to the Baffinland account in situations where a contract has been signed between Baffinland and a service provider after the insurance is placed”, if the insurance review as set out in the Service Fee Agreement intends that “Aon is going to bring to Baffinland’s notice any lucuna in the coverage being provided”. Again, the wording could have been more precise, however, it is relevant to BIM’s allegations regarding Aon’s review of coverages and it refers specifically to BIM, the Service Fee Agreement and the present circumstances. If Mr. Amaral disagrees with the underlying assumption that this accurately describes the present circumstances, he may do so but this is not a basis for refusing to answer this question. Aon shall answer this Refusal within 45 days.
[20] With respect to Refusal 4, Mr. Amaral was asked if, from his perspective, in all of 2014, BIM staff who he was dealing with directly were “at the end of the firehose and overworked”. This does not ask Mr. Amaral to speculate, it asks him from his perspective if BIM staff were overworked in 2014. If Mr. Amaral’s evidence is that he would have to speculate to answer this question then he can simply say that he does not know. There is a distinction between a question which is inherently speculative and a question that requires a particular witness to speculate based on their own lack of knowledge, information or belief. In any event, BIM has not demonstrated why this question is relevant and Mr. Amaral already agreed in the previous question that Aon went directly to certain staff because others were overworked. This is a sufficient response and nothing further is required.
[21] Refusals 5-15– These 11 questions are refused by Aon on the basis that the correspondence at issue was sent by 2 Senior Claims Consultants, Andrew Hernandez and Bruce Martin, who work in Aon’s claims-side operations. Aon explains that there is a clear distinction between its broker-side operations (placing an appropriate policy for a customer) and its claims-side operations (assessing and processing demands per a placed policy). Aon submits that while the broker-side is relevant based on the Third Party Claim, the claims-side is not. Aon also argues that the questions are not relevant because the correspondence was sent post-fire and therefore, necessarily focused on claims services and not broker services.
[22] Without more, I cannot accept that it is proper for Aon to refuse to answer a question solely on the basis that an employee who is the subject of the question works on the claims-side. How Aon structures its operations is not, on its own, determinative without also considering the specific circumstances surrounding the question, the documents and the actual activities of the employee. It may be that notwithstanding where an employee works in an organization, they had involvement in issues relevant to the litigation including through correspondence or discussions with the clients or colleagues. They may have inevitably discussed overlapping brokerage and claims issues which could be relevant regardless of the timing. While Aon’s operational structure does not provide a legitimate basis for a blanket refusal, it is one factor to consider when determining whether the questions asked are relevant and proportionate. In my view, the conclusions below are consistent with Aon’s obligations to make inquiries of other employees (Cooke Aquaculture Inc. v. Continental Casualty Company, 2017 ONSC 5073 at para. 10). They are also proportionate such that it would not be unduly onerous for Aon to make the inquiries.
[23] With respect to Refusal 5, Mr. Hernandez sent a letter to Anmar dated August 31, 2015, copied to BIM. The letter is in response to Anmar’s request for a list of its assets which were declared to the Insurers. Mr. Hernandez states that Insurers’ counsel previously advised that the value of Anmar’s equipment was not declared to the Insurers and confirms that a list of assets was not attached to the Policy. This letter was produced by Anmar in these proceedings but not by Aon. BIM requests that Aon go back and redo searches on the claims-side of its operations to produce relevant documents. Mr. Amaral testified that Aon’s claims-side conducted a search for relevant documents but that he did not know whether the entirety of Mr. Hernandez’s and Mr. Martin’s files had been produced. If their entire files have been produced, then this should end the inquiry. Directing Aon to redo any searches without first making inquiries into whether these two files have been produced or confirming what searches were completed and documents produced would be disproportionate and inefficient. Aon shall advise within 45 days whether these two files have been produced, and if not, what searches were done and what documents were produced from the claims-side. This also covers Refusal 6, whether any notes from Mr. Hernandez regarding any discussions he had with broker-side employees have been produced.
[24] With respect to Refusals 7 and 8, BIM requests that Aon make inquiries of Mr. Hernandez and advise if he had any discussions with BIM prior to sending the letter and the details of any discussions. In my view, Mr. Hernandez’s letter addresses issues which are relevant to this litigation, namely, the coverage obtained by BIM for Anmar’s equipment. Despite the fact that Mr. Hernandez is employed on Aon’s claims-side and the timing of his letter, whether Anmar’s equipment was declared or attached to the Policy is probative of issues in the litigation and goes beyond claims issues or at the least, there is overlap. Aon shall make these inquires of Mr. Hernandez and advise within 45 days.
[25] Refusals 9-15 relate to an email message from Mr. Martin to Dave Matarazzo of Anmar dated November 13, 2015 which attaches a memo setting out his assessment and next step strategy details. In my view, there is some information in these documents which is relevant to the scope and sufficiency of coverage that was put in place.
[26] Refusals 9-10 simply require Mr. Martin to confirm if he sent the email and prepared the memo. Given that I have concluded that there is some relevant information, Aon shall inquire of Mr. Martin and answer these Refusals within 45 days.
[27] I am satisfied that Aon shall also make inquires of Mr. Martin and answer Refusal 11 regarding how he arrived at his conclusion that coverage should be extended to Anmar for its equipment in paragraph 1 under “Coverage Opportunities”. Similarly, inquiries should be made regarding Refusals 12 and 13 with respect to Mr. Martin’s comment at paragraph 2 with respect to “levels of miscommunication that have seemingly left a gap in coverage for Anmar”. These Refusals are relevant to the placement and scope of coverage and shall be answered within 45 days.
[28] With respect to Refusal 14, BIM asks Mr. Amaral to have Mr. Martin confirm if the “Builders’ Risk form” referred to at paragraph 3 is a reference to the Builder’s Risk policy referred to in Aon’s Defence to the Third Party Claim. In Refusal 15, BIM asks him to obtain an explanation from Mr. Martin regarding his comment at paragraph 3 that “Canada Broker Link should have known of the standard exclusion for contractor equipment in the Builders’ Risk form”. Refusal 14 is a direct reference to Aon’s pleadings and Refusal 15 again raises issues regarding the placement, sufficiency and scope of coverage. Both questions shall be answered within 45 days.
Non-Party Records and Non-Party Witness Motion
[29] Rule 30.10 states:
“(1) The court may, on motion by a party, order production for inspection of a document that is in the possession, control or power of a person not a party and is not privileged where the court is satisfied that,
(a) the document is relevant to a material issue in the action; and
(b) it would be unfair to require the moving party to proceed to trial without having discovery of the document.”
[30] The Court of Appeal has held that when considering a motion for non-party production, the court should take into account the interests of the moving party in obtaining documents relevant to a material issue in the action to assist in proving their case at trial and those of the non-party in not being put to undue inconvenience, expense or exposure to liability (Lowe v. Motolanez, 1996 CanLII 37 (ON CA) at p. 8).
[31] In Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce v. Deloitte & Touche, 2014 ONSC 3513; aff’d 2015 ONCA 60, Perell J., citing Ontario (Attorney General) v. Stavro, (1995) 1995 CanLII 3509 (ON CA), 26 O.R. (3d) 39 (C.A.), set out the relevant factors:
“In deciding whether to order production of documentation from a non-party, the court should consider the following: (a) the importance of the documents in the litigation; (b) whether production at the discovery stage of the process as opposed to production at trial is necessary to avoid unfairness; (c) whether the discovery with respect to the issues to which the documents are relevant was adequate and if not, whether responsibility for that inadequacy rested with the examining party; (d) the position of the non-parties with respect to production; (e) the availability of the documents or their informational equivalent from some other source; and (f) the relationship of the non-parties from whom production was sought to the litigation and the parties to the litigation.” (Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce at para. 128).
[32] The onus is on the moving party to demonstrate that it would be unfair to require it to go to trial without production of the non-party's documents such that a finding of potential unfairness is essential before production from a non-party will be ordered. The party seeking production must demonstrate more than that the information will improve his or her chances of success or that the information will enhance the likelihood that the court will come to the fair and just result (Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce at paras 129-130).
[33] BIM requested a copy of the adjuster’s file and a meeting with Mr. Burnett. MGB advised that it would provide the file and arrange for a meeting if BIM and Anmar each signed a release and BIM paid any fees for Mr. Burnett’s time. BIM has agreed to these conditions, however, Anmar will not agree to sign a release.
[34] BIM submits that it would be unfair to proceed to trial without the adjuster’s file as it contains relevant documentation which is central to BIM’s defence of Anmar’s claims and required to answer its undertakings given to Anmar. BIM argues that the adjuster’s file contains relevant information regarding Anmar’s proof of loss and why its claim was not accepted in full, including whether Anmar simply failed to prove its uninsured loss. Anmar supports production of the adjuster’s file without terms.
[35] MGB and Mr. Burnett argue that as agents of the Insurers who are Defendants to Lloyd’s Third Party Claim, they are not non-parties to these proceedings and the usual test should not apply. This includes the risk that Anmar will use any documents produced by MGB to commence an action against the remaining 4 Insurers. I agree that their position is different from more typical non-parties who are often complete strangers to the litigation. However, I reject this submission particularly given that the test set out in Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce includes a consideration of the relationship of the non-parties to the litigation and the parties. In applying this test and arriving at my conclusions below, I have taken into consideration MGB’s relationship to the Insurers and these proceedings.
[36] MGB claims that BIM has not demonstrated that the adjuster’s file contains relevant documents, that it would be unfair to proceed to trial without them or that it is necessary to answer undertakings. MGB asserts that substantial documentation and explanations were provided to Anmar and BIM during the adjustment and payment of their claims. MGB also claims that documents can be obtained in the ordinary course of discovery in Lloyd’s Third Party Claim where Mr. Burnett will likely be deposed (Subway v. Trent University, 2017 ONSC 4562 at paras. 14-16). MGB also asserts that BIM can simply call Mr. Burnett as a witness at trial. Alternatively, MGB submits that if this Court orders the adjuster’s file to be produced, it should be on terms including a narrow scope of production, denying any examinations and requiring Anmar and BIM to execute releases in favour of MGB and its principals.
[37] Based on the record before me and the parties’ submissions, I conclude that there are relevant documents in the adjuster’s file with respect to the denial of Anmar’s loss which it would be unfair for BIM to go to trial without. The denial of coverage for some of Anmar’s loss is at the heart of its action against BIM and flows directly from the adjustment of its claim under the Policy. Documents in the adjuster’s file will be probative of these decisions. In particular, they may shed light on any issues related to Anmar’s proof of its claim such as missing or incomplete documentation and any impact of Mr. Matarazzo’s alleged fraudulent conduct on the denial of coverage. This may raise defences for BIM that it might not be able to otherwise and assist the court in adjudicating the action. While not central to my conclusion, production is also necessary to satisfy at least some of BIM’s undertakings.
[38] While some of the documents may eventually be produced in Lloyd’s Third Party Claim, there is no sense as to when this might occur or when Mr. Burnett may be examined. This may delay this action unnecessarily while steps could be taken to move it forward with the added benefit that production may facilitate settlement discussions. It is also not clear how much documentation Anmar and BIM each received during the adjustment process which they have produced in this action. The inquiries related to the steps set out below should bring some clarity.
[39] While BIM has satisfied its onus, I conclude that production should be on terms. I am not prepared to order production of the entire adjuster’s file. Counsel was unable to provide the court with anything more than a general idea of what documents are in the adjuster’s file but confirmed that the size of the file is significant. Ordering MGB to produce the entire adjuster’s file without more insight would be disproportionate and cause MGB to incur unnecessary time and expense and a duplication of efforts. Imposing terms in the absence of the parties’ agreement has not generally been the court’s preferred approach (Lowe at para. 14). However, in the present circumstances, I conclude that imposing terms is proportionate and consistent with the requirement to protect and balance the interests of the non-party MGB as enumerated in Stavro and Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. This is also consistent with an approach which places an emphasis on cost-effectiveness and efficiency.
[40] In my view, the most proportionate, reasonable and efficient result in the circumstances is a staged approach. This should start with identifying what relevant documents are in the adjuster’s file followed by further discussions by the parties before any documents are produced:
i.) MGB shall deliver a list of relevant documents and/or document categories in the adjuster’s file related to Anmar’s proof of loss and the portions of its claim that were denied. Based on the parties’ submissions, documents with respect to BIM’s claim are not required. Given the size of the file, this may require significant time and effort. Therefore, while MGB shall make best efforts to deliver the list within 90 days, I leave it to counsel to further discuss timelines;
ii.) BIM and Anmar shall review the list to determine what documents have already been produced, what documents they already possess and what relevant documents they wish to obtain and have further discussions with MGB regarding production and any further terms, including any related to confidentiality;
iii.) any issues with respect to the production of specific documents including confidentiality terms may be brought back before me;
iv.) the deemed undertaking rule shall apply to the production of the documents (Lowe at paras. 20-21).
[41] In my view, this Court has no jurisdiction to order Anmar and BIM to execute releases in favour of MGB. I have not been referred to any applicable authority and I decline MGB’s request to do so.
[42] With respect to the request for an examination of Mr. Burnett, Rule 31.10 states:
“(1) The court may grant leave, on such terms respecting costs and other matters as are just, to examine for discovery any person who there is reason to believe has information relevant to a material issue in the action, other than an expert engaged by or on behalf of a party in preparation for contemplated or pending litigation.
(2) An order under subrule (1) shall not be made unless the court is satisfied that,
(a) the moving party has been unable to obtain the information from other persons whom the moving party is entitled to examine for discovery, or from the person the party seeks to examine;
(b) it would be unfair to require the moving party to proceed to trial without having the opportunity of examining the person; and
(c) the examination will not,
(i) unduly delay the commencement of the trial of the action,
(ii) entail unreasonable expense for other parties, or
(iii) result in unfairness to the person the moving party seeks to examine.”
[43] The parties did not refer me to any case law with respect to Rule 31.10. However, it would be premature to determine if Mr. Burnett should be required to attend an examination until the issues regarding the production of MGB’s documents are resolved by agreement or finally determined by this Court. It may be that a meeting with Mr. Burnett as initially discussed may resolve this issue, at least in the interim. In any event, the Rule 31.10 motion is adjourned sine die and may be spoken to before me after the documentary issues have been disposed of.
III. Disposition and Costs
[44] Order to go on the terms set out above. If necessary, counsel may schedule a telephone case conference with me to speak to the terms set out above and/or form of order and the return of any remaining issues from the motions.
[45] If BIM and Aon cannot agree on the costs of the refusals motion, they may file written costs submissions not to exceed 3 pages (excluding Costs Outlines) on a timetable to be agreed upon by counsel.
[46] The costs of the Rule 30.10 and Rule 31.10 motions are reserved to be spoken to after the final disposition of these motions.
Released: August 2, 2022
Associate Justice McGraw