The moving parties sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order dismissing a motion related to a pending summary judgment motion in complex multi-party litigation.
The challenged order refused leave to file supplementary affidavit evidence after cross-examination, declined to order that the assigned motions judge not hear the summary judgment motion, and addressed issues regarding further cross-examination and privilege.
Applying Rule 62.02(4) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the court held that the applicants failed to demonstrate either a conflicting decision or good reason to doubt the correctness of the order on matters of public importance.
The motions judge had properly applied established authorities governing supplementary affidavit evidence and the administration of motions under Rule 37.15.
The court concluded the issues raised concerned only the interests of the parties and did not justify appellate intervention.
