Date: 19980611
Docket: T-2529-96
MONTREAL, QUEBEC, THIS 11th DAY OF JUNE 1998
PRESENT: RICHARD MORNEAU, ESQ., PROTHONOTARY
BETWEEN:
LEVI STRAUSS & CO. and
LEVI STRAUSS & CO. (CANADA) INC.
Plaintiffs
AND
ROADRUNNER APPAREL INC.
Defendant
REASONS FOR ORDER AND ORDER
RICHARD MORNEAU, ESQ., PROTHONOTARY
1 In this case, the Court has before it two motions.
2 The first motion is brought by the Plaintiffs for a confidentiality order and an order establishing a timetable for subsequent steps to be undertaken.
3 The second motion is a cross-motion brought by the Defendant. By this motion the Defendant seeks an adjournment of the Plaintiffs' motion on the ground that the Plaintiffs' Affidavit of Documents is inaccurate and incomplete and that the Defendant should not be required to proceed further in this case until the Plaintiffs correct their Affidavit of Documents.
4 The Defendant's contention is that neither Schedule I nor Schedule II to the Plaintiffs' Affidavit of Documents provides details as to any privileged documents which might relate to the outstanding actions as listed in the Statement of Particulars or as outlined in paragraph 21 of the Statement of Defence.
5 Having heard counsel for the Defendant and having considered the approach taken by the Plaintiffs with respect to Schedule I and II of their Affidavit of Documents, I am satisfied that Plaintiffs' Affidavit of Documents need not be further particularized. I believe it is up to counsel for the Defendant to review the bundles of documents listed under Schedule I to the Plaintiffs' Affidavit of Documents and to eventually challenge any restriction the Plaintiff may attribute to a document pursuant to the accompanying confidentiality order which will issue.
6 Therefore, the Defendant's cross-motion is dismissed with costs in the cause.
7 As for the Plaintiffs' motion, based on rule 151 of the Federal Court Rules, 1998 and the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Novopharm Ltd. v. Glaxo Group Ltd. (unreported decision of Stone, Linden and Robertson, dated April 24, 1998, Docket No. A-768-95), I am satisfied that a confidentiality order should issue on the terms set out in the draft order attached as Schedule "A" to the Plaintiffs' motion.
8 Furthermore, it is hereby ordered:
-that the Defendant serve its Affidavit of Documents on or before June 22, 1998;
-that each party designate an informed officer, director, member or employee on its behalf for oral examination for discovery to take place at a time and place to be agreed by counsel. Said discoveries shall commence no later than four (4) weeks from the date of this order;
-costs in the cause on the Plaintiffs' motion;
-these Reasons for Order and Order insofar as they pertain to the Plaintiffs' motion are applicable to File T-1525-97 as well.
Richard Morneau
Prothonotary
MONTREAL, QUEBEC
June 11, 1998
PLACE OF HEARING: Ottawa, Ontario
DATE OF HEARING: May 28, 1998
REASONS FOR ORDER BY RICHARD MORNEAU, ESQ., PROTHONOTARY
DATE OF REASONS FOR ORDER: June 11, 1998
|
|
|
| APPEARANCES:
|
|
| Mr. Elliot S. Simcoe
|
for the Plaintiffs
|
| Mr. Glen Sheskay
|
for the Defendant
|
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
| Mr. Elliot S. Simcoe
Smart & Biggar
Ottawa, Ontario
|
for the Plaintiffs
|
| Mr. Glen Sheskay
Yegendorf, Brazeau, Seller, Prehogan & Wyllie
Ottawa, Ontario
|
for the Defendant
|
|
|
|
Email this Content