The plaintiffs in a proposed class action sought orders to have a motion for approval of a third party financing and indemnity agreement heard without notice to the defendant, in camera, and with the documents sealed.
They argued that disclosure would compromise solicitor-client privilege and litigation strategy.
The court dismissed the motion, holding that the defendant is affected by the funding agreement and entitled to notice and participation.
The court further held that third party funding agreements are not privileged, or if they are, the privilege is waived when applying for court approval.
The open court principle requires the funding motion to be heard publicly, though the court provided specific procedural directions for the future motion.
