Sunday, November 25, 2012

In which I serve Notice of Examination

The first part of the discovery process is relatively straightforward. Both sides have to file an Affidavit of Documents, listing all documents in their possession containing information relevant to the case. I filed mine last week, and I am still waiting for my opponents to file theirs. In the meantime, once you have filed, you are entitled to summon the opposing parties to be examined. You do this by serving them with a Notice of Examination. This I have also done.

I am not exactly ready to conduct my examinations, but I served notice anyways. I did so because according to the Court of Queen's Bench Rules, the party who serves first is the party who gets to examine first. I want to examine them before they examine me. So I served notice requiring each of the parties to report for examination "at a location...and on a date and time to be agreed upon...". This is a bit irregular. You're expected to name a specific time and place, but I wasn't ready to do that. I just wanted to establish my priority.

So you're wondering: why do I care about priority and why wouldn't I name a time and place?

The priority issue goes back to the very start of my conflict with the university. They wanted me to tell them my side of the story first, before they would tell me what other people were saying about me. I wouldn't agree to this. That's what they call a fishing expedition. When someone's trying to build a case against you, it's a tremendous advantage if they can feel you out ahead of time.

So if I want to examine them first, why won't I name a time and place?

Now it gets complicated. Normally, when there are multiple defendants, they are all entitled to be present for the examinations. So while I am examining Party A, Parties B,C,D and E are sitting there observing. I don't want that. The crux of my case is that those parties got together to do me in, and the crux of their defense is that they didn't. They acted independently, motivated by nothing more than the desire to do their jobs. If I want to find holes in their narrative, it is a great advantage for me to be able to examine them separately, so they don't have the opportunity to harmonize their stories. Likewise, it is to their advantage to attend the examinations of their co-defendants.

I am therefore asking the Court to order that the various individual defendants be excluded from attending the examinations of their co-defendants. To this end, I have filed a motion with the court requesting just that. And until that motion is decided, I have no way of knowing what date I will be able to begin my examinations.

That's why I left the time and place on my Notice of Examination "to be agreed upon". It's rather irregular and I'm not sure that it's going to fly. But as far as I'm concerned, I'm on the record as having established my claim to priority. The real issue now is going to be my Motion for Exclusion.

I've posted my motion online, so you can look it over here. When we return, I'll explain how the process works and the way I plan to argue it.

No comments:

Post a Comment