Discovery. Rita Peatie fi led a suit in a Connecticut state court in October 2004 against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., to recover for injuries to her head, neck, and shoulder. Peatie claimed that she had been struck two years earlier by a metal cylinder falling from a store ceiling. The parties agreed to nonbinding arbitration. Ten days before the hearing in January 2006, the plaintiff asked for, and was granted, four more months to conduct discovery. On the morning of the rescheduled hearing, she asked for more time, but the court denied this request.

The hearing was held, and the arbitrator ruled in Wal-Mart’s favor. Peatie fi led a motion for a new trial, which was granted.

Five months later, she sought through discovery to acquire any photos, records, and reports held by Wal-Mart regarding her alleged injury. The court issued a “protective order” against the request, stating that the time for discovery had long been over.

On the day of the trial—four years after the alleged injury—the plaintiff asked the court to lift the order. Should the court do it? Why or why not? [Peatie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 112 Conn.

App. 8, 961 A.2d 1016 (2009)]