2 total
The court ordered production of a quoted podcast excerpt but deferred chart background documents.
This endorsement addresses two production issues in a proposed class action for misrepresentation under the Securities Act and the Class Proceedings Act.
The plaintiff sought production of (1) a podcast audio or transcript quoted by defendant Michael Novogratz in his affidavit, and (2) documents underlying a chart referenced by defendant Alex Ioffe.
The court ordered production of the portion of the podcast transcript quoted in the affidavit, but declined to order production of the underlying documents for the chart, finding such requests more appropriate for cross-examination.
The court also set out a timetable for the upcoming motions and clarified the process for resolving refusals.
The court struck an expert report by an investor for lack of objectivity but admitted a lawyer's expert report on complex securities regulations with redactions on the ultimate issue.
This decision addresses the admissibility of two expert reports submitted by the plaintiff in a proposed class action certification motion.
The defendants sought to strike the reports, arguing lack of objectivity and improper scope.
The court ruled that the report from an investor in the defendant company was inadmissible due to a direct economic conflict of interest, despite the expert's disclosure and offer to opt out of class compensation.
The report from a lawyer specializing in securities and corporate law was deemed admissible, as it provided necessary and helpful expertise on complex regulatory standards, but its concluding paragraphs opining on the ultimate issue of misrepresentation were ordered redacted as they usurped the court's role.
