Key Facts:

• GSI conducts offshore seismic surveys and licenses its data for resource exploration.
• Edison entered into a licensing agreement with GSI in April 2012.
• GSI alleges Edison possesses unlicensed seismic materials obtained from FOGL and Noble Energy Inc.

Claims by GSI:

1. Breach of Contract: Edison joined an exploration group and obtained unlicensed GSI materials without paying required fees.
2. Contractual Interference and Negligence: Edison induced FOGL and Noble to breach their agreements with GSI and improperly used GSI's seismic materials.
3. Intellectual Property Infringement: Edison used and distributed unlicensed GSI materials, exploiting GSI’s confidential information.

Application by GSI:

• GSI sought to compel Edison to respond to certain questions and undertakings, arguing that Edison’s objections were improper and responses inadequate.
• Edison argued that GSI's questions were irrelevant and immaterial.

Legal Framework:

• Disclosure rules require relevant and material questions to be answered if they significantly help determine issues in the pleadings.
• Relevancy is defined by pleadings; materiality is based on whether the information helps prove a fact in issue.

Court’s Decision:

• The court reviewed undertakings and objections, accepting some as relevant and material, while denying others as too broad or irrelevant.
• Costs were split, with a $2,500 sanction against GSI for exceeding page limits in submissions.

Successful Party:

• The document does not indicate a clear, overall winner in the case, as it focuses on specific rulings regarding the discovery process rather than a final judgment on the merits of the case.