2 total
Motion to revisit a prior disclosure order dismissed for lacking new, previously undiscoverable material facts.
The applicant brought a motion seeking the production of a corporate server (Decentral Server) for disclosure purposes, arguing the respondents had not adequately searched it.
This request had been previously dismissed by Justice Kiteley.
The applicant sought to revisit the prior decision, asserting new material facts, including the respondent's alleged failure to comply with an offer to conduct further searches and new expert evidence on e-discovery methods.
The court dismissed the applicant's motion, finding that the alleged new facts were either not fundamentally different from what was previously argued or could have been discovered with reasonable diligence at the time of the original motion.
The court affirmed that interlocutory orders are binding unless new, material, and previously undiscoverable facts are presented.
Defendants awarded substantial partial indemnity costs after defeating amendment and discovery plan motions.
Following an earlier decision dismissing a motion by the plaintiffs to amend their statement of claim and rejecting most of their requested changes to a discovery plan in a securities class action, the court addressed costs.
The defendants sought substantial partial indemnity costs for both the amendments motion and the discovery plan motion.
The court held that the amendments motion was a significant and high-stakes procedural dispute in complex class proceedings and that the defendants’ claimed costs were within the reasonable expectations of the losing party.
The court also found that the plaintiffs’ demands regarding the discovery plan were disproportionate and that the defendants were the successful party on that motion.
Costs were awarded to the defendants both for the amendments motion and, in any event of the cause, for the discovery plan motion.
