Canadian National Railway Company v. BNSF Railway Company, 2019 FC 281
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
The plaintiff by counterclaim, BNSF Railway Company (BNSF), moves for a protective order. The defendant by counterclaim, Canadian National Railway Company (CN), consents to the terms of the proposed protective order. Despite the parties’ agreement, I dismissed the motion with reasons to follow (Order dated February 13, 2019). These are the reasons. ... The parties have raised a number of concerns with reliance on a protective agreement as an alternative to a protective order. It is convenient to address these concerns under the following headings: i) Enforceability of a Protective Agreement; ii) Applicability of a Protective Agreement to Third Parties; iii) Imprecision and Lack of Certainty in the Scope of the Implied Undertaking Rule; iv) Parties’ Discomfort in the Absence of a Protective Order; v) Added Heft of a Court Order; and vi) Important Change to Longstanding Practice. ... In the present case, I conclude that the reasonable alternative measure of a protective agreement will protect the parties’ confidential information as well as the requested protective order.
Decision relates to:
- T-913-17 - CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAY COMPANY v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY