The Defendant, who applied for an Order to set Trial dates, submitted that the conditions required under Rule 8.5 for the Court to order Trial dates had been met. Plaintiff’s (newly retained) counsel argued that because he had not had a reasonable opportunity to review the file: (1) he was not able to provide the Court with the anticipated number of witnesses and the anticipated length of the trial; and (2) he was unable to certify that there were no further Pre-Trial steps required. Both (1) and (2) are specific items listed under Rule 8.4 as responsibilities of Parties to be completed before the Court Clerk sets a Trial date.

Lee J. noted that it was the inability of the Parties to set the matter down for Trial, pursuant to Rule 8.4, that motivated the Rule 8.5 Application. The Court also highlighted that in June 2011 the Court directed the Parties to meet certain deadlines in furtherance of the Action, and that these deadlines ended in August 2011; the proposed Trial date in June 2012 would be nearly a year since the Parties were to have met those deadlines. Lee J. also remarked that counsel for the Plaintiff would be in a position to have finalized his review of the matter by the end of March 2012, which would leave ample time for preparation for the Trial. Lee J. granted the Application, concluding that the conditions for scheduling the Trial as set out in Rule 8.5 had been met.