Mediatube Corp. v. Bell Canada

Mediatube Corp. v. Bell Canada

The court ordered that any corrections provided by the defendant to its discovery answers must be included in plaintiffs' read-ins because excluding corrections would misrepresent the defendant's true responses and undermine the purpose of Rule 289 to ensure fairness and context; refusals are not admissible unless later answered; documents included with read-ins are admissible only to the extent they clarify the read-in and are not proof of their contents absent other admissibility.

Citation
2016 FC 1066
Parties
Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: Mediatube Corp.; Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim: Northvu Inc.; Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim: Bell Canada
Court
Federal Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
21 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Patent Infringement / Trial (motion Regarding Read in of Discovery Evidence)
Outcome
Order issued requiring inclusion of corrected discovery answers in read-ins; refusals not read in unless later answered; documents included are not evidence of their truth.
Legal Topics
Examination for Discovery, Read in Evidence, Corrections to Discovery Answers, Federal Courts Rules Rule 288, Federal Courts Rules Rule 289, Hearsay, Costs
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Evidence Patent Law Examination for Discovery Read in Evidence Corrections to Discovery Answers Federal Courts Rules Rule 288 +3 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mediatube Corp.

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Northvu Inc.

Plaintiff/defendant by Counterclaim

Bell Canada

Defendant/plaintiff by Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Patent Infringement / Trial (motion Regarding Read in of Discovery Evidence)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether corrected discovery answers must be included in an adverse party's read-in evidence under Rule 289
  2. 2 Proper scope of qualifying answers that must be ordered read-in
  3. 3 Whether refusals to answer may be read in

Ratio Decidendi

The court ordered that any corrections provided by the defendant to its discovery answers must be included in plaintiffs' read-ins because excluding corrections would misrepresent the defendant's true responses and undermine the purpose of Rule 289 to ensure fairness and context; refusals are not admissible unless later answered; documents included with read-ins are admissible only to the extent they clarify the read-in and are not proof of their contents absent other admissibility.

Court Disposition

Order issued requiring inclusion of corrected discovery answers in read-ins; refusals not read in unless later answered; documents included are not evidence of their truth.

Orders

  • For any of the defendant’s discovery answers that the plaintiffs read-in to evidence, the plaintiffs shall also include as part of their read-ins any corrections that have been provided by the defendant.
  • Refusals by the defendant to answer certain questions on discovery may not be read in as evidence unless the refusal was later replaced with an answer.