KC & Ors v Shiley Inc & Anor [1997] FCA 796

KC & Ors v Shiley Inc & Anor [1997] FCA 796

The respondents had not complied in important respects with Lockhart J's discovery order, particularly by failing to disclose substantial documents at the Shiley Heart Valve Research Centre, the Pfizer New York location and foreign locations, and by giving misleading correspondence about microfilm. Further discovery in specific categories was necessary to provide a fair trial, but a general discovery order was not appropriate at this stage. Production was to proceed promptly and progressively, subject where applicable to privilege, confidentiality, privacy requirements and United States protective orders.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 1997
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure; Discovery in Product Liability Proceedings Concerning an Artificial Heart Valve / Interlocutory Motion for Compliance With an Existing Discovery Order and for Further Discovery Before Trial
Outcome
Application allowed in part; specific further discovery and production directions indicated; no general discovery order made at this stage; costs deferred.
Legal Topics
['further and Better Discovery' 'compliance With Discovery Orders' 'relevance and Necessity of Discovery' 'californian Privacy Laws Affecting Employee Records' 'united States Protective Orders' 'privilege and Confidentiality Claims']
['practice and Procedure' 'discovery' 'product Liability' 'privacy and Confidentiality'] ['further and Better Discovery' 'compliance With Discovery Orders' 'relevance and Necessity of Discovery' 'californian Privacy Laws Affecting Employee Records' 'united States Protective Orders' 'privilege and Confidentiality Claims']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure; Discovery in Product Liability Proceedings Concerning an Artificial Heart Valve / Interlocutory Motion for Compliance With an Existing Discovery Order and for Further Discovery Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents had failed to comply with the discovery order made by Lockhart J on 13 December 1996.' 'Whether further discovery orders were necessary for a fair trial.' 'Whether employee records should be discovered notwithstanding asserted Californian privacy law constraints.' 'Whether documents subject to United States protective orders should be produced.' 'Whether lists, indexes, microfilm, expert materials, research records, device history records, product complaint reports and acquisition documents should be made available.']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents had not complied in important respects with Lockhart J's discovery order, particularly by failing to disclose substantial documents at the Shiley Heart Valve Research Centre, the Pfizer New York location and foreign locations, and by giving misleading correspondence about microfilm. Further discovery in specific categories was necessary to provide a fair trial, but a general discovery order was not appropriate at this stage. Production was to proceed promptly and progressively, subject where applicable to privilege, confidentiality, privacy requirements and United States protective orders.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; specific further discovery and production directions indicated; no general discovery order made at this stage; costs deferred.

Orders

  • ['The applicants were directed to bring in short minutes to give effect to the reasons.' 'Relevant employee records were to be discovered and made available as soon as practicable, subject to United States privacy law requirements and appropriate confidentiality terms.' 'Relevant Shiley Heart Valve Research Centre,...