Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Dispute centered on finalizing the proper wording of a court order following a discovery-related ruling by a now-retired associate judge.

• Key issue was whether the proposed order accurately reflected the previous decision permitting non-party examinations and further document disclosure.

• Registrar declined to sign the original agreed order due to discrepancies with the judge’s actual reasons and lack of clarity around costs.

• Associate Justice Robinson emphasized that a formal order must reflect the decision rendered, not interpretations or private agreements between counsel.

• Plaintiff’s revised draft order more closely aligned with the language used in the original ruling and was preferred, subject to minor amendments.

• No costs were awarded for the settling process, though future cost claims were left open as part of the broader litigation.

Background and procedural context

This decision in Boni v. Gary Jonas Computing Ltd. concerned a procedural motion to settle the wording of an outstanding formal order stemming from a 2022 ruling by now-retired Associate Justice Graham. The ruling had granted the plaintiff, Paolo Boni, leave to examine non-parties—specifically Lake Capital and JL Albright Ventures—and directed the defendant to provide a further and better affidavit of documents. However, no formal order had been signed at the time, and litigation continued on other fronts in the meantime.

After the judge’s retirement, the registrar refused to sign the original draft order, even though both parties had initially agreed to it. The plaintiff then submitted a revised version of the order, and Associate Justice Todd Robinson was tasked with settling the dispute over its wording, pursuant to Rule 59.04(15) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows another judge to settle and sign an order when the original judge is no longer available.

Dispute over language and procedural compliance

The registrar identified three concerns with the initial version of the draft order:

1. It lacked the required email chain showing authority to sign on behalf of all parties.

2. A key paragraph did not align with the language in paragraph 70 of the judge’s reasons.

3. The draft improperly included a provision for costs that had not been awarded.

Justice Robinson found the registrar’s concerns valid. He stressed that settling an order is not an opportunity to interpret, amend, or expand upon a judge’s ruling. An order must strictly reflect the written decision—not what the parties believe the judge meant or intended to order. If clarification was needed, the parties should have requested it directly from the issuing judge before retirement or pursued an appeal.

In this case, Justice Robinson rejected both the defendant’s request to reinstate the originally agreed draft and any attempt to challenge the legal basis of the order itself. Since no appeal or clarification was sought in the intervening time, the associate justice confined his role to aligning the formal order with the decision as written.

Outcome and order issued

Justice Robinson accepted the plaintiff’s revised draft as the better reflection of the original ruling, with modest revisions to clarify connections between specific exhibits and affidavit references. He signed and issued the order based on that version. However, despite the plaintiff’s request for $3,500 in costs related to the settling process, no costs were awarded. The judge held that the situation arose because both parties had initially submitted a flawed draft order, and additional expense could have been avoided through earlier action.

Conclusion

This case underscores the procedural importance of clarity, accuracy, and timing in formalizing court orders. It also reaffirms that judicial authority in settling an order is limited to reflecting the court’s actual decision—not revisiting its substance. While the plaintiff’s draft was ultimately adopted, the ruling signals that parties must exercise diligence when interpreting and implementing judicial directions, particularly in complex discovery matters involving non-parties.