Page: 44
THE COURT: What – I think his point was more with
respect to credibility, not...
MR. FAROOQ: Right.
THE COURT: ...with respect to the length of time that
transpired between the scheduled discovery and then
the, the, you know, first available date of your client. I
think the issue was that your client had, had sworn an
affidavit saying he was out of the country – a
supplemental affidavit he was out of the country because
of the family emergency and when you read that email to
Counsel, I appreciate, you know, it would have been
Counsel’s job to then convey to, to the plaintiff’s lawyer
but when you read that email again, you know, for what
it’s worth, it doesn’t really sound like, oh my gosh, I have
to leave because I have a family emergency.
It’s more like, it’s kind of not convenient and I would have
to reschedule my trip so could you please ask if we can
reschedule it and then the night before it’s, oh, there was
this emergency. So it’s more it goes to his credibility, I
think.
MR. FAROOQ: I get that – I mean, that part is a valid one
and I could address that but what I – I wasn’t quite – I’ll
be candid, happy about my friend’s represent – that what
frustrates me is he goes, lawyers not notifying and so on.
Like, there’s no issue about lawyers notifying, there’s no
advantage for our law firm or a client to have an
examination that was scheduled for February 25th then
saying to counsel, look, we’re ready to go March 13th,
two weeks later.
So that part about, you know, law firm and lawyers, that’s
– I would respectfully say it has – it’s not valuable to the
court’s assessment. It’s a red herring especially when
you’ve got two weeks later examination being
proposed…
THE COURT: Well, no, I think you’re missing his point...