Fluid Energy Group Ltd. v. Mud Master Drilling Fluid Services Ltd., 2020 FC 229
Justice Zinn - 2020-02-12
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
[Decision from 2020 but only posted online today] The Plaintiff appeals the Prothonotary’s October 24, 2019 decision dismissing its motion to remove the “Confidential Information – Counsels Eyes Only” designations from documents produced by the Defendants in this patent infringement action. This appeal engages the terms of a protective order agreed to by the parties. ... Included in the Protective Order is a right to challenge the designation of information under each of the three categories of confidentiality. In my view, ignoring the express terms of the challenge mechanism contained in the Protective Order runs counter to the notion that including a challenge mechanism in a proposed CEO protective order is a factor that favours granting the order ... I am satisfied, based on the history between these parties, and the conduct between them prior to this litigation, that it is a belief reasonably held by the Defendants. Specifically, I find that it meets the definition of a CEO designation agreed to by these parties, as the Defendants in good faith reasonably believe it to be of such nature and character that disclosure of such information would be harmful to them.
Decision relates to:
- T-1642-16 - FLUID ENERGY GROUP LTD. v. MUD MASTER DRILLING FLUID SERVICES LTD.