BCI Media Group Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2021] FCA 884

BCI Media Group Pty Ltd v CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd (No 3) [2021] FCA 884

The CoreLogic parties' compliance with preliminary discovery obligations was unsatisfactory and incomplete, justifying clarification and amplification of the orders, further verified lists of documents separate for each CoreLogic party, extension of time for compliance, and specific reference to discoverable categories. Orders requiring the creation of documents (such as reconstructed group email lists) were not justified, but production of current lists should be made. Against the Gingold parties, extension of time for compliance was justified, but conflation of discovery obligations between the individual and the company was not.

Parties
Prospective Applicant: BCI Media Group Pty Ltd; First Prospective Respondent: CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd; Second Prospective Respondent: RP Data Pty Ltd; Third Prospective Respondent: Cordell Information Pty Ltd; Fourth Prospective Respondent: Gingold Investments Pty Ltd; Fifth Prospective Respondent: Angelo Colangelo
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2021
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Discovery Application / Post Hearing on Compliance, Clarification, and Extension Orders
Outcome
Orders made as to further and clarified discovery by the CoreLogic parties, extension of time for compliance by all prospective respondents, opportunity for further submissions on costs.
Legal Topics
Preliminary Discovery, Compliance With Discovery Orders, Copyright, Data Scraping, Discovery Procedure
Practice and Procedure Intellectual Property Preliminary Discovery Compliance With Discovery Orders Copyright Data Scraping Discovery Procedure

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 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

BCI Media Group Pty Ltd

Prospective Applicant

CoreLogic Australia Pty Ltd

First Prospective Respondent

RP Data Pty Ltd

Second Prospective Respondent

Cordell Information Pty Ltd

Third Prospective Respondent

Gingold Investments Pty Ltd

Fourth Prospective Respondent

Angelo Colangelo

Fifth Prospective Respondent

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Discovery Application / Post Hearing on Compliance, Clarification, and Extension Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the CoreLogic parties have complied with preliminary discovery orders
  2. 2 Whether clarification and further extension of discovery orders is warranted
  3. 3 Whether the Gingold parties are required to take further steps to comply with discovery obligations

Ratio Decidendi

The CoreLogic parties' compliance with preliminary discovery obligations was unsatisfactory and incomplete, justifying clarification and amplification of the orders, further verified lists of documents separate for each CoreLogic party, extension of time for compliance, and specific reference to discoverable categories. Orders requiring the creation of documents (such as reconstructed group email lists) were not justified, but production of current lists should be made. Against the Gingold parties, extension of time for compliance was justified, but conflation of discovery obligations between the individual and the company was not.

Court Disposition

Orders made as to further and clarified discovery by the CoreLogic parties, extension of time for compliance by all prospective respondents, opportunity for further submissions on costs.

Orders

  • On or before 4.00 pm on 9 August 2021, the parties provide draft orders giving effect to the reasons for judgment.
  • Leave granted to each party to file and serve brief written submissions on costs by 4.00 pm on 9 August 2021.