YPG IP LIMITED AND ANOR V YELLOWBOOK.COM.AU PTY LTD AND ORS HC AK CIV-2007-404-2839
The Court ordered targeted electronic discovery and inspection: specific electronic copies of discovered documents (items 1.1 and 1.2 and agreed items), further discovery or sworn explanation for specified Schedule 2 items, provision of amended statement of defence and an affidavit from director answering interrogatories within 21 days; the Court refused the plaintiffs' application for forensic imaging of defendants' hardware because the defendants' evidence that relevant hardware/backups no longer exist and the lack of a demonstrated real prospect of recovering relevant material meant the intrusive step was not justified at interlocutory stage.
- Citation
- openlaw-c66232cb_1935_4ee4_911b_7ac9e6dab2b0.pdf
- Parties
- First Plaintiff: YPG IP LIMITED; Second Plaintiff: YELLOW PAGES GROUP LIMITED; First Defendant: YELLOWBOOK.COM.AU PTY LTD; Second Defendant: DAVID KHOURY; Third Defendant: ROBERT G COLES
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 28 July 2010
- Procedural Posture
- High Court Civil Claim (copyright, Trade Marks, Fair Trading) / Interlocutory (discovery and Inspection Applications)
- Outcome
- Application partly granted in part and refused in part
- Legal Topics
- Discovery, Inspection of Electronic Documents, Forensic Imaging of Computers, Interrogatories, Preservation/spoliation of Evidence, Database Copyright, Trade Mark Ownership and Goodwill
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
YPG IP LIMITED
First Plaintiff
YELLOW PAGES GROUP LIMITED
Second Plaintiff
YELLOWBOOK.COM.AU PTY LTD
First Defendant
DAVID KHOURY
Second Defendant
ROBERT G COLES
Third Defendant
Procedural Posture
High Court Civil Claim (copyright, Trade Marks, Fair Trading) / Interlocutory (discovery and Inspection Applications)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendants must produce electronic copies of identified discovery documents (notably documents 3.001 and 3.002)
- 2 Adequacy of discovery and whether further and better discovery should be ordered
- 3 Whether forensic imaging of defendants' hardware should be ordered
Ratio Decidendi
The Court ordered targeted electronic discovery and inspection: specific electronic copies of discovered documents (items 1.1 and 1.2 and agreed items), further discovery or sworn explanation for specified Schedule 2 items, provision of amended statement of defence and an affidavit from director answering interrogatories within 21 days; the Court refused the plaintiffs' application for forensic imaging of defendants' hardware because the defendants' evidence that relevant hardware/backups no longer exist and the lack of a demonstrated real prospect of recovering relevant material meant the intrusive step was not justified at interlocutory stage.
Court Disposition
Application partly granted in part and refused in part
Orders
- First defendant to provide within 21 days electronic copies of discovered documents in Schedule 1: items 1.1 and 1.2 (or, if item 1.2 cannot be provided, an affidavit from Emmanuel Khoury fully explaining why not) and items 1.5, 1.7, 1.11 and 1.16.
- First defendant to provide within 21 days by supplementary affidavit and produce copies of any existing documents identified in Schedule 2: items 2.6, 2.19 and 2.20 (or, if unobtainable, an affidavit from Emmanuel Khoury fully explaining why not) and items 2.18, 2.20, 2.36 and 2.37.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment