The plaintiff brought a motion to amend its Statement of Claim to substitute five named individuals for 'John Doe' defendants.
The action involved allegations that the defendants improperly accessed and used the plaintiff's confidential bond trading information.
The court applied the two-part test for misnomer, focusing on whether the 'litigating finger' pointed at the proposed defendants such that they would have known they were the intended parties.
The court granted the motion for four of the individuals, finding they would have recognized they were implicated by the allegations of accessing or destroying information, but denied it for one individual whose role was not clearly implicated by the pleadings.
