Opinion
Docket No. 01 CV 9882 (DLC).
August 17, 2005
Dear Judge Cote:
On behalf of Talisman Energy, I write to correct a misstatement of fact contained in the letter addressed to the Court, dated August 16, 2005, signed by John M. O'Connor, Esq., one of plaintiffs' counsel. So as not to belabor the matter I will not respond to the argumentative portions of Mr. O'Connor's latest letter, but will confine myself to factual matters.
Plaintiffs' counsel writes in his most recent letter that "Talisman has stated an intention to appeal to Justice Pitt." I am advised by Talisman Energy's Ontario counsel that this misrepresents both Talisman Energy's intention and Ontario procedure: No "appeal" is being, or can be, taken from the Registrar (the equivalent of a Clerk in an American court) to the judge. Rather, where (as in this case) there is a dispute as to the form of an order resulting from a judge's decision, the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure provide that the matter is ordinarily to be resolved by the judge who issued that decision. Notwithstanding Plaintiffs' shrill suggestion, all that is happening is that Talisman Energy's counsel is seeking an appointment with Justice Pitt at the earliest available date, for the purpose of determining the appropriate form of order.
Talisman Energy's interest in this matter is the one raised with Your Honor in my August 5 letter — i.e., that it have a reasonable opportunity to protect any privilege that it may have in the documents possessed by its former employees. Accordingly, Talisman Energy's Ontario counsel have asked plaintiffs' Ontario counsel to agree that the issues we have raised with this Court not be rendered moot by the form of any order to be entered in Ontario. This request is reflected in a letter sent by Robert Frank, Esq., of Macleod Dixon LLP (Talisman Energy's counsel in Ontario) to plaintiffs' Ontario counsel yesterday, a copy of which is attached hereto. I understand that plaintiffs' Ontario counsel have not yet responded to this request.