Justice Zinn - 2021-11-09
Read full decision. Automatically generated summary:
The Plaintiff moves for a Confidentiality Order for Trial, and has proposed the order set out as Schedule A to its Notice of Motion. ... The Court finds it regrettable that these parties of late have seen fit to quibble about almost everything, especially given the short period before trial. This motion is no exception. ... As a result of corporate reorganization, neither [instructing counsel] is an “employee” of a defendant in this action; however, the Defendants are subsidiaries of corporations which do employ them, and they have and continued to be involved in the action, including instructing outside counsel. The Court will not permit a party to have its selected representative for those purposes be refused access to the trial and access to the evidence adduced. That would place the party opposite at an unfair advantage and not serve the interests of justice. ... Subject to the Court accepting a jointly proposed confidentiality order for trial, offered with sufficient evidentiary support as described in Sierra Club, the trial shall proceed without any confidentiality or sealing order.
Decision relates to:
- T-815-17 - PHARMASCIENCE INC. v. MEDA AB ET AL