Peter Nostbakken

Following a motion in which the plaintiffs successfully opposed the Attorney General’s attempt to strike portions of a statement of claim under Rules 21.01 and 25.11, the court determined the appropriate quantum of costs.

The plaintiffs sought approximately $19,586 in fees on a partial indemnity basis, while the defendant argued for a reduced range of $10,000 to $12,000.

Applying the Rule 57.01(1) factors and relevant authorities on partial indemnity costs, the court assessed the complexity of the duty of care issue, the parties’ litigation conduct, and the reasonableness of counsel’s hourly rates and bill of costs.

The court concluded that a reduced but significant award was appropriate.

A corporate plaintiff brought a motion seeking extensive third‑party telephone records, additional documentary disclosure, leave to amend pleadings to add claims arising from additional procurement requests, and extensions to litigation timelines in an action relating to federal procurement contracts.

The court applied Rules 26.01 and 30.10 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the Limitations Act, 2002.

Leave to amend was partially granted only in relation to claims concerning a later procurement process and to further particularize an existing Charter damages claim, while proposed amendments relating to another procurement and new causes of action were refused as statute‑barred or untenable.

Broad disclosure requests relating to other bidders were rejected as irrelevant and disproportionate, but limited disclosure relating to the termination and re‑issuance of the relevant contract and documents relating to the permitted amendment were ordered.

Third‑party telephone record production was permitted subject to service and a temporary stay allowing the service providers to challenge the order.