J. Holtom

Following a successful confidentiality motion by the defendant, the parties submitted written costs submissions.

Both parties improperly filed additional unauthorized materials, for which the court denied leave.

The defendant sought $54,000 in costs, while the plaintiff argued for $3,000 based on a prior Federal Court decision.

The court rejected both extremes, finding the defendant's materials excessive but acknowledging the complexity and importance of the motion.

The court awarded the defendant partial indemnity costs fixed at $28,570.

The defendant brought a motion for a confidentiality and sealing order over documents and transcripts previously sealed in related Federal Court patent infringement proceedings.

The plaintiff opposed the motion and sought an adjournment to conduct cross-examinations.

The court denied the adjournment, finding the plaintiff failed to exercise its examination rights with reasonable diligence and the proposed evidence lacked material relevance.

While the court rejected the defendant's argument that the confidentiality issue was res judicata, it applied the Sherman Estate test and granted the sealing order, finding a strong public interest in protecting commercially sensitive information compelled through discovery.