DT’s disclosure Sample Clauses

DT’s disclosure. Substantial progress has been made on certain aspects of DT’s disclosure. In particular, the parties have compromised on the global and custodian-specific date ranges for searches, the practical effect of which is to extend DT’s disclosure periods materially. However, there remains a significant difference between the parties on two related matters. The first is DT’s custodians. DT has proposed all of its Directors on EE’s Board during the relevant period as custodians. These were the senior decision-makers (one is now DT’s CEO). Instead of accepting these custodians as a comprehensive (and reasonable) approach to disclosure, P4U has adopted a scattergun approach to adding new custodians. Before the adjourned 2nd CMC, it proposed 5 individuals who were secretaries or administrative staff in relation to existing custodians. This suggestion has now, wisely, been withdrawn completely. But, after the 2nd CMC adjournment, P4U proposed that six brand new custodians should be searched (while maintaining the remaining two custodians previously proposed by P4U, ignoring the explanations provided by DT as to why they are not appropriate custodians). This is also an unfocused approach; for example, it includes two senior DT in-house lawyers and an unheralded suggestion that DT’s former CEO should be searched. But P4U does not explain why DT’s current proposal is problematic. Instead, it reflexively seeks to add more custodians, almost for its own sake. The second issue involves “early disclosure” of “Board documents” and communications between DT and other Defendants, as well as provision of “hit reports” and document hold notices sent several years ago before the case began. These disclosures are put forward by P4U mainly so that it can “audit” DT’s custodian selection. This is a backwards approach in circumstances where DT has put forward a comprehensive proposal for disclosure that does not exclude a reasoned specific disclosure request by P4U, once it has received DT’s disclosure. It is also a one-sided approach that is inappropriate in general, and will simply lead to pointless satellite disputes as partial disclosure of documents will, inevitably, lead to documents being read out of context.

DT’s disclosure. 3. DT’s submissions on its disclosure before the June CMC are set out at §§17-57 of its 5 June 2020 skeleton argument [E2/3/8]. In the interim, the parties have worked hard to narrow areas of disagreement and a measure of progress has been made. However, some material differences remain. For the Court’s reference, the key correspondence between DT and P4U on DT’s disclosure since the service of skeleton arguments on 5 June 2020, is: (i) P4U’s letter of 22 June 2020 [C/592]; and (ii) DT’s letter of 24 June 2020 [C/603].