François Guay

The defendants brought a motion to strike portions of the testimony of two of the plaintiffs' witnesses at trial, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to meet their discovery obligations regarding certain documents.

The defendants contended that the corporate representatives lacked knowledge during discovery but provided more detailed evidence at trial, and that certain heavily redacted agreements were improperly used.

The Court dismissed the motion regarding the unredacted exhibits, finding no refusal to answer questions and noting the defendants failed to use procedural tools like undertakings or substitution to address the deficiencies.

However, the Court granted the motion to strike testimony related to the heavily redacted commercial agreements, holding that the minimal disclosure prevented their use to adduce further evidence at trial.

In a patent infringement action between hockey equipment manufacturers, the parties brought cross-motions to exclude various expert reports.

The Court dismissed the defendant's motion to exclude a report under Rule 248, finding the expert relied on disclosed documents.

The Court granted the defendant's motion to strike the plaintiff's expert reply report on reasonable royalty as improper reply.

The Court exercised its discretion to admit another expert reply report on accounting for profits.

The plaintiff's motion to strike portions of the defendant's responding and reply reports was dismissed.