2 total
The court dismissed a motion for a collective security for costs order across unconsolidated actions.
The defendants (Franchisor Group) brought a motion for a collective security for costs order against three corporate plaintiffs (Franchisees) involved in related but unconsolidated actions, seeking a global payment of $597,427.32.
The court dismissed the motion, finding no legal basis under Rule 56.01 for a collective security for costs order against plaintiffs in separate actions.
The court also declined to grant alternative relief (separate security orders) under the "basket clause" of the notice of motion, citing procedural unfairness due to lack of proper notice and the arbitrary nature of quantifying security without a detailed breakdown of costs per action.
The court ordered disclosure of foundational documents and retainers for expert reports relied upon for ex parte orders, but upheld litigation privilege for internal drafts.
The defendants brought a motion seeking orders to compel answers to refused questions and production of documents related to forensic accounting reports (Tartis and Crowe Soberman) and a digital forensic investigation (Duff and Phelps), as well as miscellaneous accounting and financial records.
The court largely granted the defendants' requests, ordering disclosure of foundational documents and retainers for the Tartis and Crowe Soberman reports, compelling answers to undertakings given by Filipowicz (Duff and Phelps) where no timely objection to cost was made, and requiring the plaintiffs to produce general ledgers, trial balances, financial statements, and bank statements at their expense.
However, the court upheld litigation privilege for internal drafts and notes of the reports, finding no evidence of improper conduct to warrant an exception.
