In a commercial dispute concerning banking facilities and losses allegedly arising from the termination of credit supporting commodity hedging, the defendant bank brought a motion seeking approval of a proposed electronic discovery plan and compelling compliance with Phase 2 documentary production.
The plaintiffs opposed the plan and argued that a prior court order already constituted the governing discovery plan.
The court held that the earlier timetable order did not satisfy the requirements of a discovery plan under Rule 29.1.03 of the Rules of Civil Procedure because it lacked the necessary scope, production, and procedural details.
Applying the Sedona Canada Principles and principles of relevance and proportionality, the court determined the appropriate scope of Phase 2 electronic discovery and approved the bank’s proposed discovery plan with limited amendments.
The plaintiffs’ motion seeking related relief was dismissed.
