The Court rejected the applicants' argument that the respondent had misconceived its discovery obligation, holding that requesting additional information from the opposing party to assist in performing discovery does not constitute misconception of the obligation's scope. However, the Court found that the respondent's discovery was inadequate on the separate ground that cross-examination of the verifying deponent revealed deficiencies in keyword searches (failure to search for 'BioCap'), questionable methodology in code repository searches, and an inability to exclude the existence of undisclosed BioCap files within HumanTrak — constituting admissions from which insufficiency of discovery could be inferred. The Court ordered further discovery of all HumanTrak versions over a two-and-a-half year period, reducing the five-year range sought by the applicants as an overreach given the invasive nature of preliminary discovery.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.