The plaintiff sought a direction allowing the Independent Supervising Solicitor (ISS) to commence reviewing evidence seized pursuant to an Anton Piller Order.
The defendants objected, noting the order did not permit review and seeking to schedule a motion to set aside the order.
The court declined the plaintiff's request, finding the purpose of the order—preservation of evidence—had been achieved and noting concerns that the standard clause preventing review was inexplicably omitted from the draft order.
The court also declined to schedule the motion to set aside the order, finding no urgency since the original materials were returned to the defendants and the ISS was not reviewing the copies.
An expedited schedule for documentary production was ordered instead.
