Hoy v. Medtronic

Hoy v. Medtronic

The court allowed the cross-examination because the question whether the litigation is lawyer-driven is materially relevant to the certification application, the evidence is largely within the knowledge of the plaintiff's counsel and assisting U.S. counsel, and the proposed questioning as framed does not necessarily engage solicitor-client privilege.

Citation
2000 BCSC 1715
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): James Hoy; Defendants (applicants): Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic of Canada Ltd.
Court
Supreme Court of British Columbia
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
29 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Class Action (certification) / Post Certification Hearing Motion for Cross Examination of Affiants
Outcome
Motion allowed as sought; cross-examination permitted.
Legal Topics
Certification, Cross Examination of Affiants, Lawyer Driven Litigation, Joint Venture Allegations, Privilege Objection
Source Language
English
Class Actions Civil Procedure Solicitor Client Privilege Access to Justice Certification Cross Examination of Affiants Lawyer Driven Litigation Joint Venture Allegations +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Hoy

Plaintiff (respondent)

Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic of Canada Ltd.

Defendants (applicants)

Procedural Posture

Class Action (certification) / Post Certification Hearing Motion for Cross Examination of Affiants

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants may cross-examine two U.S. attorneys who swore affidavits filed after the certification hearing
  2. 2 Whether the proposed cross-examination is relevant to the certification application
  3. 3 Whether solicitor-client privilege bars the proposed questioning

Ratio Decidendi

The court allowed the cross-examination because the question whether the litigation is lawyer-driven is materially relevant to the certification application, the evidence is largely within the knowledge of the plaintiff's counsel and assisting U.S. counsel, and the proposed questioning as framed does not necessarily engage solicitor-client privilege.

Court Disposition

Motion allowed as sought; cross-examination permitted.

Orders

  • Cross-examination of Nicholas Drakulich and John Emerson is permitted.
  • Cross-examination shall be conducted before a court reporter.