Crociani -v- Crociani [2015] JRC 103 (14 May 2015)

Crociani -v- Crociani [2015] JRC 103 (14 May 2015)

The court held that the defendants' provision of discovery in non-electronic format was unsatisfactory, lacking logical or chronological order, and not in accordance with required practice. The court ordered the defendants to produce a composite chronological list and add metadata to scanned documents at their own expense. An extension of time for electronic discovery was granted as a final order, with further extensions only in exceptional circumstances. Costs were awarded on the standard basis as a sufficient sanction for non-compliance, but the court warned that further delays could result in unless orders and indemnity costs.

Citation
[2015] JRC 103
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiffs; Defendant: First to Fourth and Seventh Defendants
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
14 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time for Discovery
Outcome
Application for extension of time for electronic discovery granted with conditions.
Legal Topics
Discovery, Electronic Discovery, Extension of Time, Costs
Civil Procedure Discovery Electronic Discovery Extension of Time Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff

First to Fourth and Seventh Defendants

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time for Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first to fourth and seventh defendants should be granted an extension of time for electronic discovery
  2. 2 Whether the form and manner of non-electronic discovery by the defendants was appropriate
  3. 3 Whether mutuality and process for electronic discovery should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendants' provision of discovery in non-electronic format was unsatisfactory, lacking logical or chronological order, and not in accordance with required practice. The court ordered the defendants to produce a composite chronological list and add metadata to scanned documents at their own expense. An extension of time for electronic discovery was granted as a final order, with further extensions only in exceptional circumstances. Costs were awarded on the standard basis as a sufficient sanction for non-compliance, but the court warned that further delays could result in unless orders and indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time for electronic discovery granted with conditions.

Orders

  • First to fourth defendants to produce a composite list of non-electronic documents in chronological order at their own expense.
  • First to fourth defendants to add metadata to scanned non-electronic documents to allow sorting by plaintiffs, at their own expense.