2 total
Independent Supervising Solicitor directed to review and produce relevant documents seized under Anton Piller Order.
The plaintiff sought access to documents seized pursuant to an Anton Piller Order executed six months prior.
The defendants opposed, arguing the Order did not explicitly permit access and that review was premature.
The court found that the terms of the Order contemplated access by the Independent Supervising Solicitor (ISS) to identify and inspect records.
Given the passage of time and the discovery stage of the proceeding, the court directed the ISS to inspect the seized material and produce relevant records to the parties, noting the ISS provides protection against disclosure of irrelevant or privileged material.
Direction for ISS to review seized evidence denied; Anton Piller order's preservation purpose already achieved.
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.
