A non-party sought leave to appeal an order requiring production of decades of corporate financial statements in connection with a summary judgment motion.
The order, originally made by a master and upheld on appeal, required production of financial statements of a pharmaceutical company alleged to be carrying on the business of a predecessor company whose sale generated royalty and option agreements benefiting the plaintiffs.
The moving party argued that conflicting decisions existed and that the order was incorrect because the documents were irrelevant, disproportionate, and improperly required disclosure from a non-party.
The court held that the alleged conflicting decisions involved different procedural stages and discretionary contexts, and therefore did not conflict in principle.
It further found the financial statements had a semblance of relevance to issues of liability, including whether the successor company continued the predecessor’s business.
Leave to appeal was refused.