Garrett Harper

The Moen defendants brought a motion seeking a confidentiality order to protect proprietary product design and manufacturing information, arguing it was highly sensitive and at commercial risk.

The plaintiffs and co-defendant Motion Specialties opposed, asserting the motion was premature, unnecessary, and lacked sufficient evidentiary basis to meet the high onus for such orders.

The court dismissed the Moen defendants' motion, finding they failed to demonstrate an important commercial interest or the absence of reasonable alternative protective measures.

The court concluded that the information's level of secrecy did not warrant confidentiality beyond the implied undertaking rule and criticized the Moen defendants for causing unnecessary delay in the litigation.

The moving defendant brought a motion to enforce a settlement agreement reached with the responding defendant and to dismiss the action and crossclaims against her.

The underlying action arose from a multi-vehicle collision where the moving defendant's vehicle was struck after the initial impact between the other defendants' vehicles.

The responding defendant had previously agreed to dismiss her crossclaim against the moving defendant without costs but later attempted to withdraw her consent.

The court found that a clear and unequivocal settlement agreement had been reached and that the responding defendant failed to show any valid reason to resile from it.

The motion was granted, the settlement was enforced, and the action against the moving defendant was dismissed.