PRACTICE |
Case Management |
Status Review |
Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. v. Doe
T-1064-98
Pelletier J.
5/4/00
7 pp.
Completion of status review--Action involving large number of defendants as result of service, execution of "rolling" Anton Piller orders against various individuals--No factual nexus between defendants--Only connection between defendants infringement of plaintiff's intellectual property rights--At invitation of Richard A.C.J. (as he then was), three categories of defendants identified: (1) defendants in respect of whom plaintiff entitled to obtain default judgment but had not done so; (2) defendants in respect of whom plaintiff had no intention of pursuing matters to final order; (3) defendants in respect of whom plaintiff intended to proceed to final orders by way of summary judgment applications or motions for judgment--Fourth category not raised consisting of defendants against whom plaintiff already obtaining final order, or in which notice of discontinuance filed--Since those submissions made, default judgments granted, motions for summary relief brought, changing status of many claims--Case management not issue where default judgment obtained--Claim subject of final order, by consent or otherwise, not subject to case management--Action where permanent injunction obtained ought to be considered concluded--Having regard to activity on file since notice of status review issued, Court not in position to easily identify which claims could be subject of case management--Counsel asked to submit list of defendants whose claims subject to case management on basis not subject to final order or notice of discontinuance, and not abandoned--Usual practice to not permit further steps in proceeding once status review initiated--Any steps currently under way may be completed without further order, subject to any order Case Management Judge may make--No further steps may be undertaken prior to appointment of Case Management Judge--No new defendants should be added to statement of claim prior to appointment of case management judge, and thereafter only with leave because difficult to conduct orderly review when number of parties involved changing--Practical difficulties created by sheer volume of defendants calling for some limit upon their number.