The Plaintiff brought a motion seeking leave to file additional evidence, including an expert handwriting report, in the context of a summary judgment motion brought by the Defendant Sandhu.
The court reviewed the procedural history, noting previous orders setting strict timelines for filing expert reports and additional materials.
Applying the factors for granting leave under Rule 39.02(2), the court found the evidence relevant and responsive to cross-examination, but determined that granting leave would result in non-compensable prejudice to the Defendant and would conflict with earlier court orders.
The Plaintiff's explanation for the delay in retaining the expert and bringing the motion for leave was deemed unsatisfactory, as the need for such evidence was known much earlier.
Consequently, the Plaintiff's motion for leave was dismissed.
