Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Novopharm Ltd.
T-431-94
Lutfy J.
1/11/96
9 pp.
In patent infringement action, plaintiff produced 20 heavily expurgated (redacted) documents-Appeal from A.S.P.'s order dismissing motion for production of unredacted copies of documents but ordering parties to attempt to reach agreement to inspect documents on counsel's eyes only basis and, should defendant's counsel not agree on irrelevance of redacted portions, ordering plaintiff to produce affidavit indicating general nature of redacted portion of each document-Also, appeal from portion of order concerning venue of motions-Appeal dismissed-R. 448 requiring listing all documents relevant to any matter in issue, not limiting discovery to only those extracts of documents which may be relevant to any matter in issue-Purpose of documentary disclosure to obtain disclosure of all documents-R. 448(5) assuring parties disclosure in affidavit of documents and its production not to be taken as admission of admissibility in action-Allowing redaction contrary to everyone's interest in good administration of justice-Where portion of document relevant, complete unexpurgated document must be made available for inspection, unless parties agree otherwise-No error justifying intervention-Venue-Appeal from A.S.P.'s decision dismissing defendant's motion for order requiring plaintiffs to bring motions in Toronto but directing motions to be heard in most convenient place for counsel and witnesses-Appeal dismissed-Federal Court Rules silent on matter of venue of motions-A.S.P.'s order reasonable solution for parties and good administration of justice, and consistent with previous orders in present action-Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 448 (as am. by SOR/90-846, s. 15).