Date: 19980616
Docket: T-2753-97
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC, THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE 1998
B E T W E E N:
INDUSTRY ENTERTAINMENT (JDR) INC.
and
JOHN HAMILTON
Plaintiffs
AND
MELENNY PRODUCTIONS INC.
Defendant
and
3311716 CANADA INC.
Defendant
AND
CINEPIX FILM PROPERTIES INC.
Intervenor
and
COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS, REGISTRAR OF COPYRIGHTS
Intervenor
O R D E R
The Court orders John Hamilton to answer the questions to which objections 19, 22, 23, 24, 27, 29 and 30 relate when his examination for discovery resumes, as well as any further questions arising from these questions.
Richard Morneau
prothonotary
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
Date: 19980616
Docket: T-2753-97
B E T W E E N:
INDUSTRY ENTERTAINMENT (JDR) INC.
and
JOHN HAMILTON
Plaintiffs
AND
MELENNY PRODUCTIONS INC.
Defendant
and
3311716 CANADA INC.
Defendant
AND
CINEPIX FILM PROPERTIES INC.
Intervenor
and
COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS, REGISTRAR OF COPYRIGHTS
Intervenor
REASONS FOR ORDER
RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
[1] It should be mentioned at the outset that a question deserves an answer in an examination for discovery if it is relevant to the points at issue between the parties, that is whether it may directly or indirectly advance the case of one party or damage the case of the other party (see Sydney Steel Corp. v. The Ship Omisalj, [1992] 2 F.C. 193, at pages 197-8).
[2] Based on this principle, it seems to me that this motion by the defendants Melenny Productions Inc. and 3311716 Canada Inc., should be dealt with as follows, in order to dispose of various objections raised by counsel for the plaintiffs during the examination for discovery of the plaintiff Hamilton in the instant case, in which Hamilton is seeking acknowledgment as co-author of the film script for "The Kid".
[3] First, some objections were settled during the hearing of the motion and for which there is no reason to make a specific determination here; the transcript of the hearing is sufficient for this purpose. This is the case for objections 2, 3 ,4, 12 and 13.
[4] As for the remaining objections, objection 1 should be upheld because the dates and the facts speak for themselves to a very large extent, and the rest is a question of legal argument.
[5] As it was expressed, objection 10 requires the witness to draw a conclusion in law, which he is not competent to do. This objection is accordingly upheld. As for objections 19 and 22, it seems to me that they can be dealt with as a group. In my view, these objections must be dismissed because the questions to which they apply seek to have the plaintiff Hamilton identify in different ways the exact nature of his original contribution to the final film script for "The Kid". Even though the plaintiff Hamilton limits his action to acknowledgment of his contribution to the film script and not to the actual production of the film, undertaking 15 given by the plaintiffs does not allow for a precise determination of Mr. Hamilton"s alleged contribution to be made, and an inspection of the film would be in order.
[6] As for objections 23, 24 and 27, the questions they refer to essentially seek to discover facts, even though they have a legal connotation. The plaintiff Hamilton can easily answer the questions referred to. These objections are accordingly dismissed.
[7] As for objections 29 and 30, a reading of the transcript shows that the reason for them was to avoid disclosure of the content of communications which could be considered privileged by the plaintiff Hamilton in his answers. Such objections can be made in the proper time and place. Under the circumstances however, they were made prematurely, and are accordingly dismissed here.
[8] Counsel for the parties stated they would agree on a time and place in order to continue the examination of Mr. Hamilton. There is accordingly no reason to dispose of this matter in the order.
[9] As the result in the instant motion is divided, no costs will be awarded to either party.
Richard Morneau
prothonotary
MONTRÉAL, QUEBEC
June 16, 1998
Certified true translation
M. Iveson
Federal Court of Canada
Court No.: T-2753-97
B e t w e e n:
INDUSTRY ENTERTAINMENT (JDR) INC. and
JOHN HAMILTON
Plaintiffs
AND
MELENNY PRODUCTIONS INC.
Defendant
and
3311716 CANADA INC.
Defendant
AND
CINEPIX FILM PROPERTIES INC.
Intervenor
and
COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS, REGISTRAR OF COPYRIGHTS
Intervenor
REASONS FOR ORDER
FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
COURT FILE NO.:
STYLE OF CAUSE:
T-2753-97
INDUSTRY ENTERTAINMENT (JDR) INC.
and
JOHN HAMILTON
Plaintiffs
AND
MELENNY PRODUCTIONS INC.
Defendant
and
3311716 CANADA INC.
Defendant
AND
CINEPIX FILM PROPERTIES INC.
Intervenor
and
COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS,
REGISTRAR OF COPYRIGHTS
Intervenor
PLACE OF HEARING: Montréal, Quebec
DATE OF HEARING: June 15, 1998
REASONS FOR ORDER OF THE COURT BY RICHARD MORNEAU, PROTHONOTARY
Dated:June 16, 1998
- 2 - T-2753-97
APPEARANCES
Bernard Blouin for the plaintiffs
Jean-François Fortin for the defendants
SOLICITORS OF RECORD
Blouin & Associés for the plaintiffs
Montréal, Quebec
Robinson Sheppard Shapirofor the defendants
Montréal, Quebec
Email this Content