Court File and Parties

Court File No.: CV-22-00676565 Date: 2022-04-21 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: QINGDAO TOP STEEL INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD., Plaintiff And: FASTENERS & FITTINGS INC., Defendant

Before: FL Myers J

Counsel: Rebecca Huang and Ian Literovich, for the Plaintiff Young Park and Alexander Evangelista, for the Respondent Chloe Snider, for Michael Wang

Heard: April 21, 2022

Endorsement

[1] This endorsement applies as well to the action commenced by the defendant against the plaintiff and others under Court File No. CV-17-588442.

[2] On consent, the final date for delivery of sworn affidavits of documents is extended to April 29, 2022. This includes itemized Schedule “B” lists for those who have yet to deliver one.

[3] On consent, the date for completion of oral examinations for discovery is extended to July 31, 2022.

[4] Ms. Huang objects to the production by the defendant of 17,000 documents in a common Schedule “A” for both actions. She asks that the defendant identify documents relevant to each action and for them to be listed separately.

[5] I accept that there could be some documents relevant to the civil procedure in China that may not be strictly relevant to the fraud and other contract, tort, and equitable allegations advanced by the defendant against the plaintiff and others. However, it is the height of artifice to suggest that the corporate plaintiff and Mr. Wang have different interests or that the issues in the two proceedings are not virtually the same.

[6] While Mr. Wang was not personally a party to the foreign proceeding, his business corporation was. The defendant claims it raised or tried to raise the same issues of fraud and other wrongdoing of the plaintiff and others there as here. Neither counsel is able to ignore a swath of documents as the issues surrounding the justness of the enforceability of the foreign judgment are wholly intertwined with the allegations of wrongdoing here.

[7] Neither do I accept that 17,000 documents represents an extraordinarily burdensome production set. TAR processes abound and are a key element of law firms’ ability to participate in e-discovery at this time. In 2022, counsels’ technological competence should be assumed.

[8] In any event, Mr. Park advises that some 6,000 of his client’s documents are invoices and purchase orders disclosed for damages calculations. They do not need to be read for content by counsel or AI until an accounting firm does its review on its own computers.

[9] In addition, nothing precludes the parties from asking questions on discovery about documents to try to pin down the issues that each is relied upon to support. If there are a few documents whose potential relevancy or use is uncertain, it is far more efficient for counsel to ask about them (perhaps in writing) rather than forcing the defendant to go through each one to determine if it might be relevant to one action or the other, or most likely, to both.

[10] Ms. Huang submits that the court has not consolidated the actions so that separate affidavits of documents are required. Mr. Park intends to deliver identical affidavits of documents. Based on the foregoing, that is an appropriately efficient, affordable, and proportionate process in my view.

FL Myers J Date: April 21, 2022