Appeal allowed against discovery orders where the categories involved were clearly an exercise in fishing

Discovery – Partnership – partnership loans – property acquired – dispute as to the extent of the indebtedness secured on the Property - whether Dengrove was entitled to charge default or penalty interest – proceedings issued claiming that the partnership agreements precluded one partner from charging the assets of the partnership, that Dengrove was bound by these restrictions, and that Dengrove could not assert that the property could be used as security for indebtedness other than that arising from the specific facilities extended to those partnerships – full defence – discovery process - Dengrove abandoned its claim to default/penalty interest - third day of hearing a settlement was agreed - settlement stipulated the agreed redemption amount (€17,379,125.09) - provided for a consensual sale of the Property and provided that, when the Property was sold, the plaintiff would receive 20.7% of the net proceeds - contribution to his costs – settlement broke down – application to amend the statement of claim – amended defence – second request for discovery – High Court decision – appeal over two categories – standard of review - decisions ought not be disturbed on appeal unless they fall outside the range of decisions reasonably open - rules relating to discovery - alternative means of proof - Discovery and Confidentiality - discovery may also involve the disclosure of sensitive private and personal information – categories in dispute - Judge failed to address himself sufficiently to the issue of whether, and to what extent, the additional material captured by category D (over and above the material which Dengrove had offered to disclose) was relevant to any issue in the proceedings and whether its disclosure could be said to be necessary for the fair disposal of the plaintiff’s claim - impossible to resist the conclusion that the wider disclosure sought by the plaintiff is an exercise in fishing, founded on speculative assertions that have no adequate foundation in the pleadings or any evidential basis in the material before the Court - Judge erred in making the Order to the extent that such Order fell outside the range of orders that could reasonably have been made by him – appeal successful –