The defendants in a personal injury action brought a motion for a further examination for discovery of the plaintiff, relying on surveillance footage that allegedly showed the plaintiff working despite his discovery evidence to the contrary.
The defendants argued the plaintiff had a duty to correct his answers under Rule 31.09 or that the surveillance constituted a material change in circumstances.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that the plaintiff maintained his answers were correct and that the generation of surveillance evidence did not constitute a change in circumstances justifying further discovery.
