A high-profile case making headlines again this week illustrates the frailties of relying on keyword searching alone when searching for relevant documents in any document review project.
Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was charged last year with breach of trust for allegedly leaking government secrets, and his legal team sought a court direction to obtain thousands of previously undisclosed government documents needed to defend him.
According to an article published by the Globe and Mail, Norman’s lawyers presented the court with evidence that his case was referred to by officials within the Department of National Defence using various codenames. … Read More
Consider for a moment the last time you had to review email messages for discovery, or pay counsel to do so on your behalf. The endless toil of slogging through random fragments of email threads that appear to be in no particular order. After a while it starts to feel like a terrible case of déjà vu. Haven’t I seen this email before? Why am I looking at this again and how did I code it when I saw it an hour ago? Did this part of the thread come before or after the portion that I viewed yesterday? … Read More
Although this was an extreme case of delay, it stands for the broader principle that litigants cannot rely on complexity, costs and eDiscovery problems to excuse them from pursuing the case in an expeditious manner and in compliance with the timelines set out under the rules, particularly when those problems are the result of inexperience of counsel in managing large electronic productions.… Read More
In Schwoob v. Bayer Inc., 2018 ONSC 166 (CanLII), a product liability class action, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ordered two non-parties affiliated with the defendant corporation to produce 2,900 documents that they had produced in a parallel U.S. class action proceeding.
The plaintiffs brought a claim against Bayer Inc. (“Bayer Canada”) and two affiliated companies, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Bayer U.S.”) and Bayer Pharma AG (“Bayer Pharma”), in 2010, on behalf of women in Ontario who had taken certain prescription oral contraceptives. The claim alleged negligence in the design, testing, distribution, marketing and sale of the contraceptives, as well as failure to adequately warn of the risk of adverse consequences. … Read More
In this case, Abacus Capital (“Abacus”) structured a series of transactions to acquire the shares of the corporations that were previously held by IGGillis Holdings Inc. and Ian Gillis (collectively, “Gillis”). Abacus’ lawyer, with input from Gillis’ lawyer, prepared a memorandum outlining the steps to purchase the shares in the most tax-efficient manner (the “Abacus Memo”). … Read More