Summary:

• Motion: Defendants requested class counsel’s dockets, redacted for privilege, to support the plaintiffs' costs claim related to certification and replacement plaintiff motions.
• Plaintiffs’ Costs Claim: $623,341.78 in costs on a partial indemnity scale.
• Court’s Decision: Justice Glustein denied the production of dockets.

Key Points:

• Exceptional Cases: The court requires dockets only in exceptional cases. The plaintiffs argued that substantial costs or disparities alone do not justify docket production.
• Precedent and Rules: The court referenced Boucher v. Public Accountants Council, emphasizing a fair and reasonable determination of costs without scrutinizing every docket. According to the Rules of Civil Procedure (r. 57.01(6)), costs outlines, not detailed dockets, are required for motions.
• Arguments by Defendants:
  1. Substantial Costs Claimed: Denied. Large costs do not alone justify docket production.
  2. Disparity in Costs: Denied. Discrepancies can be challenged through costs outlines and historical costs awards.
  3. Incongruities in Cost Outline: Denied. Alleged anomalies will be addressed through Boucher analysis and comparison to defendants’ costs.

Conclusion:

• The motion for docket production was dismissed. Costs related to this motion will be addressed in the overall costs submissions.
• Deadlines: Defendants’ costs submissions by May 17, 2024, and plaintiffs' reply by May 27, 2024.
• No specific monetary award or damages were detailed in the provided document; the focus was on the procedural motion regarding cost submissions and docket production.