KC & Ors v Shiley Inc & Anor [1997] FCA 978

KC & Ors v Shiley Inc & Anor [1997] FCA 978

The Court held that the applicants' proposed proviso regarding privilege, privacy, confidentiality, and protective orders was too onerous as drafted but should be accepted in substantially similar terms with respondents specifying nature of material by date/time range and topic. Requests to vary or omit the proviso in other paragraphs were declined. Discovery related to employee files and categories of information was appropriate. Production of depositions from Seaman and Dairyland litigation was restricted in light of protective orders. Orders for ongoing discovery and affidavit of compliance were made, with time for compliance adjusted to 28 days for relevant paragraphs.

Parties
First Applicant: KC; Second Applicant: KS by her next friend KC; Third Applicant: KF by her next friend KC; Fourth Applicant: KL by her next friend KC; First Respondent: SHILEY INCORPORATED; Second Respondent: PFIZER INCORPORATED
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 September 1997
Procedural Posture
Application for Further and Better Discovery / Post Judgment on Discovery Application
Outcome
Draft Short Minutes varied in accordance with Court's determinations; orders to be settled by applicants.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Privilege, Confidentiality, Privacy
Civil Procedure Discovery Privilege Confidentiality Privacy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KC

First Applicant

KS by her next friend KC

Second Applicant

KF by her next friend KC

Third Applicant

KL by her next friend KC

Fourth Applicant

SHILEY INCORPORATED

First Respondent

PFIZER INCORPORATED

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Further and Better Discovery / Post Judgment on Discovery Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the draft Short Minutes for further and better discovery are appropriate
  2. 2 Whether the proviso related to privilege, privacy, confidentiality, or protective orders is too onerous
  3. 3 Scope of discovery regarding employee files

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the applicants' proposed proviso regarding privilege, privacy, confidentiality, and protective orders was too onerous as drafted but should be accepted in substantially similar terms with respondents specifying nature of material by date/time range and topic. Requests to vary or omit the proviso in other paragraphs were declined. Discovery related to employee files and categories of information was appropriate. Production of depositions from Seaman and Dairyland litigation was restricted in light of protective orders. Orders for ongoing discovery and affidavit of compliance were made, with time for compliance adjusted to 28 days for relevant paragraphs.

Court Disposition

Draft Short Minutes varied in accordance with Court's determinations; orders to be settled by applicants.

Orders

  • Respondents to specify nature of material claimed privilege/confidentiality/privacy by reference to date/time range and topic.
  • Order for discovery in employee files as described.