The Court dismissed Grand Rozelle's motion to set aside parts of an amended notice to produce, holding that the documents sought (including attachments within email family groups) had apparent relevance to the compensation claim and that the burden of producing approximately 4,000 additional documents at an estimated cost of $180,000 was not oppressive in the context of a $77 million claim. The Court also held that bringing a second motion challenging the same notice to produce, after earlier consent orders had narrowed its scope, did not amount to an abuse of process in the circumstances, with the interests of justice being the overriding consideration.
The full text is available to signed-in members.