29 Mar 2019
K&L GATES v. NAVIN KUMAR AGGARWAL
- Citation
- [2019] HKCFI 702
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCA1061/2011
The discovery summonses were dismissed because the requested classes were drafted excessively wide and vague, failed the requirement of specificity and relevance, substantial discovery had already been made and K&L Gates failed to show existence of further relevant documents, and because ordering disclosure of ROVE/RTS reports and related material would create a real risk of sanction under Macau law and regulatory prejudice; accordingly the court refused to order further discovery and refused to blue‑pencil a materially different class.