Godfrey v. Sony Corporation

2017 BCSC 2352 Godfrey v. Sony Corporation

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Citation: Godfrey v. Sony Corporation, 2017 BCSC 2352 Date: 20171220 Docket: S106462 Registry: Vancouver Between: Neil Godfrey Plaintiff And: Sony Corporation, Sony Optiarc, Inc., Sony Optiarc America Inc., Sony of Canada Ltd., Sony Electronics, Inc., NEC Corporation, NEC Canada Inc., Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corporation, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corporation, Toshiba of Canada Ltd., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Canada Inc., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc., Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc., Hitachi Ltd., LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics Canada, LG Electronics USA, Inc., TEAC Corporation, TEAC America, Inc., TEAC Canada, Ltd., Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Lite-On IT Corporation of Taiwan, Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions Corporation, Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions USA, Inc., Philips Electronics Ltd., Quanta Storage, Inc., Quanta Storage America, Inc., Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, Panasonic Canada Inc., BenQ Corporation, BenQ America Corporation and BenQ Canada Corp., Pioneer Corporation, Pioneer North America, Inc., Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc., Pioneer High Fidelity Taiwan Co. Ltd., and Pioneer Electronics of Canada

Inc. Defendants Before: The Honourable Mr. Justice D.M. Masuhara Ruling Counsel for Plaintiff: R. Mogerman M.L. Segal D.G.A. Jones Counsel for Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Canada Inc., and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. E. Kriaris Counsel for Defendants Panasonic Corporation, Panasonic Corporation of North America, and Panasonic Canada Inc. E.C. Davis Counsel for Defendants Sony Corporation, Sony Optiarc, Inc., Sony Optiarc America Inc., Sony of Canada Ltd., and Sony Electronics, Inc. D.M. Peebles Counsel for Defendants Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc. and Hitachi-LG Data Storage Korea, Inc. P.N. Ge mson Counsel for Defendants Toshiba Corporation, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp., Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corp. Korea, Toshiba of Canada Ltd., Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc. L. Cooper Counsel for Defendant Hitachi Ltd. K. Wright Counsel for Defendants BenQ Corporation, BenQ America Corporation, and BenQ Canada Corp. S.M. Fitterman Counsel for Defendants NEC Corporation and NEC Canada Inc. C. Gleason-Mercier Counsel for Defendants LG Electronics, Inc., LG Electronics Canada, and LG Electronics USA, Inc. S. Forbes Counsel for Defendants TEAC Corporation, TEAC America, Inc., and TEAC Canada, Ltd. K.A. Booth Counsel for Defendants Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V., Lite-On IT Corporation of Taiwan, Philips & Lite-On

Digital Solutions Corporation, Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions USA, Inc., and Philips Electronics Ltd. N. Campbell S. Gordon Counsel for Defendants Pioneer Corporation, Pioneer North America, Inc., Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc., Pioneer High Fidelity Taiwan Co., Ltd., and Pioneer Electronics of Canada Inc. W.M.G. Osborne E. Kirkpatrick Place and Date Hearing: Vancouver, B.C. December 8, 2017 Place and Date of Ruling: Vancouver, B.C. December 20, 2017 [1] This Ruling deals with the plaintiff's proposed timetable of critical steps leading to trial. The proposal was presented at a Case Management Conference on December 8, 2017. [2] The defendants take the position that no deadlines should be set until after a case conference set for January 15, 2017 before Madam Justice Rady who is presiding over a parallel case: Fanshawe College v. Sony Optiarc Inc., Court File# 1501/10 CP. Defence points out that Rady J. directed a "pause" in that proceeding until the case conference meeting as a result of an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada of the recent decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing the defendants' appeal of my certification of the within action and a leave to appeal application before the Ontario Court of Appeal in Shah v. LG Chem Ltd. I understand leave has been granted in the latter case. I also note that a certification hearing date in the

case before Rady J. has not yet been fixed. [3] In the interim period, defence says that they will have an opportunity to develop a proposal for the coordination of the three parallel cases (British Columbia, Ontario and Québec). [4] As per the suggestion of all of the parties; I have contacted Rady J. and discussed coordination issues. [5] With the benefit of that discussion as well as the submissions of the parties, including a recent communication from defence that a proposed plan has been forwarded to the plaintiff, it is my view that some steps to advance the litigation are warranted. In this regard the following steps are to be taken (subject to plaintiffs and defendants agreeing to alternate dates): Event Date 1. Plaintiff will produce plaintiff's documents January 27, 2018 2. Defendants to provide the Plaintiffs with a narrative description of the scope of its U.S. Productions January 12, 2018 3. Defendants shall advise the Plaintiffs what steps have been taken to preserve documents and data January 12, 2018 4. Defendants to produce: (a) pre-existing documents produced in the US action (b) transaction data for its purchases and/or sales of ODD and/or ODD Products in Canada January 31, 2018 5. Defendants to produce productions specific to Canada March 15, 2018 6. Defendants to produce further productions Within 30 days of such production occurring in the U.S.

Proceedings 7. Each defendant shall produce transcripts, video and sound recordings of depositions or sworn testimony of its current and former employees, directors and officers taken in the course of the U.S. Proceeding January 31, 2018 or 30 days after the transcript becomes available [6] Other deadlines are to be brought forward at the next Case Management Conference after January 15, 2018. [7] Settling defendants are exempted from the foregoing requirements. In the event, settlements are not approved, production requirements for those defendants will be revisited. [8] A copy of this Ruling will be sent by this court to Madam Justice Rady of the Ontario Court of Appeal and Mr. Justice Nadeau of the Superior Court of Québec. "The Honourable Mr. Justice Masuhara"