The defendants brought a motion seeking directions on the interpretation of a previous order for the seizure and imaging of electronic devices, arguing it should implicitly incorporate standard Anton Piller Order protections and that Deloitte Inc. should be deemed an independent supervising solicitor.
The plaintiff resisted, asserting the original order was clear and granted on notice, not ex-parte.
The court dismissed the defendants' primary requests, holding that the order, having been granted after a full hearing with both parties present, did not automatically include ex-parte Anton Piller terms or appoint Deloitte as an independent supervising solicitor.
The court provided further directions for managing the collected electronic documents, including a timeline for the defendants to review MD5hash documents and the option for them to appoint their own expert to assist with keyword searches.
