Mata v. Norstar Corporation

Issue:

• Norstar Corporation sought an order under Rule 31.03(2)(a) directing that its General Manager, Robert Davey, be examined for discovery instead of its President, Tony Trigiani, whom the plaintiff (Oscar Mata) selected.

Decision:

• Motion denied. The plaintiff has a prima facie right to select whom to examine for discovery.

Key Considerations:

1. Sufficiency of Knowledge:

   • The court agreed that Trigiani, who directly negotiated the plaintiff’s employment contracts and signed them, has firsthand knowledge relevant to the dispute.
   • Even if Davey was involved behind the scenes, the defendant admitted Trigiani communicated key information to the plaintiff.
   • The defendant’s claim that Trigiani was merely a "messenger" is insufficient to override the plaintiff’s right to examine him.

2. Oppressiveness:

   • The defendant argued that Trigiani’s age and recent personal loss made the examination oppressive.
   • The court rejected this, noting that Trigiani remains actively involved in Norstar’s business, signs checks, makes decisions, and has regular contact with employees and customers.

3. Prejudice to Plaintiff:

   • The credibility of contract discussions is central. Only Trigiani and the plaintiff were directly involved.
   • Examining Davey would result in filtered evidence, weakening admissions about contract terms and negotiations.

Outcome:

• The plaintiff’s choice to examine Trigiani stands.
• If there are disputes over next steps or costs, parties must notify the court by March 14, 2025.
• The decision does not specify a monetary award, damages, or costs.