The plaintiffs brought a motion to compel the defendants to comply with a prior consent order requiring production of financial and maintenance records relating to a hotel property that had been sold to the plaintiffs and leased back to the defendants.
The defendants resisted production on the basis of competitive sensitivity, the structure of their accounting records across multiple hotel properties, prior endorsements by another judge, and alleged non‑existence of certain documents.
The court held that competitive concerns do not override production obligations, that complexity in financial records is not a valid basis to refuse production, and that earlier endorsements did not vary the consent order.
The court further held that editing or expunging portions of financial statements was not permitted.
The defendants were ordered to produce the required materials within 30 days, failing which the plaintiffs could move to strike the statement of defence.
