The Checkout Pty Ltd v Cordell Jigsaw Productions Pty Ltd (No 7)

The background to these proceedings is set out in my earlier judgments.

On 30 October 2020 I made orders for discovery.

Those orders included that the defendants give discovery of:

I made those orders following delivery of my judgment of 30 October 2020 [1] dealing with the discovery sought by the plaintiffs.

The words of the order are those in the plaintiffs’ notice of motion of 6 October 2020.

The parties seek guidance as to what those orders require.

Court orders are subject to “ordinary rules of construction”. [2] The “court construes [the orders] just like any other document. It does not delve into the subjective intention of the judge pronouncing [them]”. [3] This is especially so where, as here, I did not compose the words of the order. The words are those the plaintiffs chose to include in their notice of motion for discovery.

The task is “one of ascertaining what the words of the order mean”. [4]

The plaintiffs contend that these orders should be:

The defendants have stated that they “consent” to that construction, by which I understand the defendants to mean that they agree to give discovery on the basis of that construction of the orders. In those circumstances, it is not necessary for me to express any opinion as to whether that construction is correct.

Insofar as a key word includes the word “Checkout” or the words “The Checkout”, those keys words should be construed as proper nouns, referring to the television show “The Checkout”, and not as common nouns referring to a “check out” or as referring or to the colloquial expression meaning settling one’s hotel bill before leaving or establishing the truth about or informing oneself about someone or something; or anything similar.

The plaintiffs also contend that the orders should be:

The orders require production of documents “created” in the identified date range. Those documents are “emails” sent to and from the identified addresses that contain one or other of the key words. The orders also require production of any attachments to such emails: “(including attachments)”. As I read the orders, this means any attachments to those emails must be produced in full, whether or not those attachments themselves contain any key words.

The orders require production only of emails in the date range containing the key words. The orders do not require production of any other emails which may comprise part of an “email thread” in which the relevant email is contained; unless such other email in the “thread” itself is in the date range and contains a key word.

The plaintiffs also contend that the orders should be:

The defendants state that they also “consent” to this construction and continue:

I take this to mean that the defendants propose to seek liberty to apply about any such matter.

I have made no order about redaction.

I have said no more than that if commercially sensitive information is contained in the documents to be produced by the defendants, arrangements could be made to protect Mr Murray’s legitimate interest by an appropriate commercial confidentiality regime. [5]

No application has been made to me about what redaction should be permitted.

Absent an order permitting redaction, all documents should be produced subject to any claim for legal professional privilege.

If the defendants wish to apply for an order permitting redaction, they should do so in the usual way.

The vacation judge should not be troubled with any such application. If there is a genuine concern about the confidentiality of any material, and if it is contended that such concern cannot be accommodated by an agreement that the document be made available only to the plaintiffs’ legal advisers, I expect defendants to raise that matter with me immediately, and in any event prior to 5.00pm tomorrow.