T-1758-89
Titan Sports Inc. and Titan Promotions (Canada)
Inc. (Applicants)
v.
Mansion House (Toronto) Limited carrying on
business as Cabaret East, 445204 Ontario Limited
carrying on business as Queensbury Arms Tavern,
Tempworld Limited carrying on business as Chez
Paree II, 558560 Ontario Limited carrying on
business as Chez Paree II Place de Royale, Zack's
Emporium & Eatery [1111 Finch Avenue West,
2787 Eglinton Avenue East and 1625 Military
Trail, Toronto], Scoozi's in the New Yorkdale Inn,
Caddy's, O'Tooles Roadhouse Restaurants [ 1747
Albion Road, 355 Rexdale Boulevard and 1891
Kennedy Road, Toronto], 620712 Ontario Inc.
carrying on business as Alexander's Tavern,
710639 Ontario Inc. carrying on business as Alex-
ander's Tavern, Wizards, Flamingo Road Cabaret
Inc., John Doe, Jane Doe and Other Persons Who
Are Not Authorized By the Applicants and Who
Intend to Perform or Exhibit the Wrestling
Match Known as "SummerSlam" (Respondents)
INDEXED AS: TITAN SPORTS INC. v. MANSION HOUSE
(TORONTO) LTD. (T.D.)
Trial Division, MacKay J.—Ottawa, August 25
and September 6, 1989.
Copyright — Injunctions — Ex parte application for
interim injunction to prevent infringement of applicants' copy
right in television production of wrestling event — Program
disseminated by scrambled coded signal to limited private'
audiences at authorized venues — Unauthorized venues using
illegally modified electronic equipment to receive and display
applicants' program — Also seeking "Anton Piller" order
authorizing entry of respondents' premises and for delivery up
of illegally modified equipment — Applications allowed —
Criteria for interlocutory or interim relief — Requirements for
Anton Piller order — Order also requiring respondents to
disclose details of source and supplier of unauthorized equip
ment — Necessary to control pirating — Precluding respon
dents from discussing order except with solicitors to prevent
avoidance of service — Students-at-law employed by appli
cants included among authorized persons — Inclusion of Jane
and John Doe and other persons not named in style of cause
explained.
This was an ex parte motion for interim and interlocutory
injunctions prohibiting the respondents from infringing the
applicants' copyright in the television production of a major
wrestling event. The applicants also sought "Anton Piller"
orders authorizing entry of the respondents' premises and
directing the delivery up of electronic equipment which had
been illegally modified to receive and display the applicants'
closed circuit performance. The applicants' program was to be
disseminated by scrambled coded signal via satellite for closed
circuit television broadcast to limited private audiences at
authorized venues. The applicants adopted measures to protect
their copyright, including the use of a sophisticated scrambling
system to limit access to the performance, licensing selected
venues, advertising warnings against unauthorized exhibition of
the telecast as copyright infringement, and notifying owners of
those venues indicating an intention to show the telecast with
out authorization, of their intention to protect their interests.
Similar steps had proven insufficient to deter a large number of
unauthorized venues from showing an earlier program, and
although legal action has been commenced, the applicants
believe that they will be unable to collect damages in some
cases. The illegally modified equipment used by unauthorized
venues was acquired from an unauthorized supplier. The appli
cants alleged that the unauthorized showings will result in
confusion as to which venues are authorized and this could lead
to loss of reputation as some of the unauthorized venues may
not meet the applicants' standards. Furthermore, the applicants
could be exposed to civil actions by exclusive licensees for lost
revenues from ticket and concession sales. Finally, the appli
cants' opportunities to establish a major business activity might
be lost.
Held, the application should be allowed.
The copyright claim was well founded and the unauthorized
showing of the television program would constitute infringe
ment. The potential financial losses, the loss of reputation to
the applicants and the threats to their long-term interests in the
industry in Canada, resulting from the operations of unauthor
ized venues, constituted serious and irreparable prejudice and
harm. Any remedy in damages against unauthorized users
would be extremely difficult to calculate and the potential to
recover tenuous because of the nature of the operations of
unauthorized venues, such as clubs and bars, which may not be
well funded or of long standing. Weighing the balance of
convenience between the parties, the applicants' interests
should be protected by injunctive relief. They had good reason
to believe that their copyright interests would be infringed
unless steps were taken to prevent that, and that if steps were
not taken they would suffer irreparable harm. In an application
without notice, Rule 469(2) limits relief to an interim injunc
tion for no more than ten days.
The applicants have established the three requirements for
the issue of an "Anton Piller order": namely a very strong
prima facie case for an injunction, very serious damage, and a
real possibility that the defendant will destroy incriminating
documents if there is advance notice of the order. In requiring
the respondents to permit entry to their premises and the
inspection and detention of unscrambling devices, the order
sought was within the normal terms of an Anton Piller order.
The application was, however, unusual in that it sought com
plete details about the source and supplier of the unauthorized
unscramblers. Although there exists conflicting case law as to
whether relief of this nature should be granted, the requested
provision would be included in the order made herein because
of the widespread practice of pirating of the applicants' pro
gram on a previous occasion and the expectation that the same
would happen again. Control of pirating can only be achieved if
those seeking to protect their interests in their copyright can
solidify their positions with each successive event by gaining
information about sources of distribution of unauthorized
unscramblers. The second unusual aspect of the order sought
was that it would preclude the respondents from discussing the
order with anyone other than their solicitors following service
upon them, in order to avoid informing other unauthorized
venues of the applicants' efforts to serve the order and to seek
unauthorized descrambling devices. The venues in question
were widespread and could not all be visited at the same time.
This term should be included in the order but could be ques
tioned upon 24-hours' notice. While unusual, such "gag orders"
are not unknown.
Two procedural matters were to be disposed of as follows:
First, as students-at-law are treated for some purposes as
officers of the court in Ontario, those employed on behalf of the
applicants might be included among authorized persons. The
services of these students were required to assist the lawyers in
serving the order on the substantial number of venues. Second,
wherever names of a corporation or person operating any of the
venues were known, they were designated as parties, carrying
on business in the name of the venue. The inclusion of Jane and
John Doe and other persons not named in the style of cause was
appropriate both in relation to designated venues whose owners
were unknown at the time the order was issued and in relation
to operators of premises now unknown that might be brought to
the attention of the applicants as likely to be unauthorized
venues for display of the program.
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS JUDICIALLY
CONSIDERED
Copyright Act, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-42, ss. 3(1),(1.1) (as
am. by S.C. 1988, c. 65, s. 2), 5, 13, 27(l),(5).
Federal Court Rules, C.R.C., c. 663, R. 469(2).
CASES JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED
APPLIED:
American Cyanamid Co y Ethicon Ltd, [1975] 1 All ER
504 (H.L.); Turbo Resources Limited v. Petro Canada
Inc., [1989] 2 F.C. 451; (1989), 91 N.R. 341 (C.A.);
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Zellers Inc., [ 1984] 1 F.C.
49; (1983), 73 C.P.R. (2d) 1 (T.D.); Anton Piller KG v.
Manufacturing Processes Ltd., [ 1976] Ch. 55 (C.A.); All
Canada Sports Promotions Ltd. and B.C.L. Entertain
ment Corp. v. Sun Lite Systems, Tom Kelly, et al.,
judgment dated November 7, 1988, Supreme Court of
Ontario, 32891/88, not yet reported.
NOT FOLLOWED:
Chin-Can Communication Corporation et al. v. Chinese
Video Centre Ltd. et al. (1983), 70 C.P.R. (2d) 184
(F.C.T.D.).
REFERRED TO:
Nintendo of America, Inc. v. Coinex Video Games Inc.,
[1983] 2 F.C. 189; (1982), 69 C.P.R. (2d) 122 (C.A.);
Culinar Foods Inc. v. Mario's Food Products Ltée,
[1987] 2 F.C. 53; (1986), 12 C.P.R. (3d) 420 (T.D.).
AUTHORS CITED
Ough, Richard N. The Mareva Injunction and Anton
Piller Order, London: Butterworths, 1987.
COUNSEL:
Gordon J. Zimmerman and Gayle Pinheiro
for applicants.
SOLICITORS:
Borden & Elliot, Toronto, for applicants.
The following are the reasons for order ren
dered in English by
MACKAY J.: This was a motion made ex parte
for interim . and interlocutory injunction orders
prohibiting respondents from certain described
activities that would infringe copyright interests of
the applicants in a scheduled performance of a
major wrestling event, not yet performed, planned
to be distributed through authorized venues with
authorized access to satellite broadcast facilities
for closed circuit television. In addition, the appli
cants sought orders in the nature of "Anton Piller
orders" to direct entry to premises of the respon
dents, to deliver up electronic equipment used for
reception and display of closed circuit or encrypted
television signals, which equipment has been modi
fied, without authorization of the applicants, so as
to be activated by the scrambled signal transmit-
ted by the applicants containing their closed cir
cuit copyright performance, and certain terms of
the order sought would go further in support of
protecting the applicants' interests.
The application was heard at a special hearing
on Friday, August 25, 1989 with the televised
performance, the wrestling event known as "Sum-
merSlam" to take place on the following Monday,
August 28, 1989 from 8:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. and
from 11:00 p.m. that date to 2:00 a.m. on August
29, 1989, (all times being Eastern Daylight Time).
The applicant Titan Sports Inc. is a corporation
organized and subsisting under the laws of the
State of Delaware in the United States of Ameri-
ca. The other applicant, Titan Promotions
(Canada) Inc. is a corporation organized and sub
sisting under the laws of Canada. The applicants
are affiliated corporations which share common
officers and shareholders.
The applicant Titan Sports Inc. claims a reputa
tion for the creation, promotion, production,
performance and distribution of professional wres
tling exhibitions under a registered service mark,
World Wrestling Federation ("WWF"). Four
major performances are mounted each year under
the names Royal Rumble, Wrestlemania, Sum-
merSlam, Survivor Series. These are disseminated
by scrambled coded signal, via satellite, for televi
sion production of professional wrestling exhibi
tions to limited private audiences at authorized
venues across Canada and the United States.
During telecasts of these major wrestling events,
including SummerSlam, the applicant Titan
Sports Inc. consistently displays the several trade
marks that it holds. It claims exclusive ownership
of all rights in the closed circuit telecasts of the
SummerSlam event to be distributed in Canada at
the times and on the dates specified. It claims this
as the producer, through employees and independ
ent contractors who have assigned their rights in
production to the applicant in the original work
which is the television broadcast. That broadcast
involves significant planning, skill and effort on
the part of employees and independent contractors
employed by Titan Sports Inc., and considerable
costs on behalf of the corporation. The production
is said to incorporate in a unique manner musical
arrangements and compositions to which Titan
Sports Inc. is the owner or has secured rights for
performance.
In conjunction with the process of delivering the
signal containing the SummerSlam performance
from the corporation's production centre, via satel
lite for transmission to and reception at selected
sites, the applicant Titan Sports Inc. will make a
simultaneous video recording of the work, thereby
simultaneously fixing the work in a material form.
The claim of the applicant Titan Sports Inc. to
copyright in the performance, and the exclusive
rights flowing therefrom, would seem to be well
founded in light of the Copyright Act, R.S.C.,
1985, c. C-42, sections 3(1) and (1.1) [as am. by
S.C. 1988, c. 65, s. 2], 5 and 13, as amended.
The applicant Titan Promotions (Canada) Inc.
is engaged in and claims a reputation for promo
tion, production, performance and distribution of
professional wrestling exhibitions in Canada. By
agreement with Titan Sports Inc. the applicant
Titan Promotions (Canada) Inc. has been granted
the exclusive licence to distribute the closed circuit
telecast of SummerSlam in Canada. In turn, Titan
Promotions (Canada) Inc. has granted exclusive
closed circuit distributorships to exhibit the tele
cast at selected venues in Canada to certain closed
circuit distributors.
The applicants have taken the following steps to
protect copyright interests in the SummerSlam
closed circuit telecast.
1) Titan Sports will cause the signal to be trans
mitted via satellite utilising the "VideoCipher II"
system, a scrambling technology used to encode
and decode television signals so as to restrict and
control access to performances transmitted by
scrambled signals for closed circuit television.
2) The applicants do not intend to have the work
performed for the general public, rather it is to be
available only to selected venues authorized by a
closed circuit distributor granted exclusive rights
in certain geographic areas by licence to exhibit
the SummerSlam closed circuit telecast. Author
ized venues are provided by the applicants with
authorized "VideoCipher II" equipment which
facilitates unscrambling for closed loop transmis
sion to large television screens for viewing by
patrons at authorized venues who will have paid a
fee for admission.
3) The applicants have undertaken considerable
advertising and promotion of the SummerSlam
telecast through regional newspapers across
Canada, including advertisements specifying copy
right ownership and warning against any unau
thorized exhibition or rebroadcast of the telecast
as an infringement of copyright interests.
4) The applicants have also served notice by letter
from their solicitors of their copyright interest and
have warned owners or operators of all venues that
have come to their attention as having advertised
or otherwise indicated an intention to show the
SummerSlam telecast without authorization from
the applicants that they intend to protect their
interests.
Similar steps were taken by the applicants to
warn against unauthorized display of the perform
ance as a violation of copyright interests in connec
tion with an earlier program, Wrestlemania V,
telecast on April 2, 1989. Nevertheless, at a large
number of unauthorized venues the program was
shown in violation of the applicants' rights and to
their detriment. Action has been commenced
against operators of venues who were warned but
ignored the warnings and provided this earlier
program to their patrons without authorization.
The applicants are concerned that if they are
vindicated by judgment in that action, damages
awarded are unlikely to be met by at least some of
those sued. At least one of those involved on the
earlier occasion has since gone out of business
leaving the applicants without any effective
remedy in damages or for an accounting profits
against that party.
Unauthorized venues apparently have access to
the television signal carrying the applicants'
performance by satellite transmission through the
acquisition, from an unauthorized supplier of elec
tronic equipment, of an unscrambler box which
has been wired to contain an unauthorized silicone
chip specially programmed, without authority of
the owners, to provide access to the signal. While
the VideoCipher II technology seems highly
sophisticated and effective for the purposes of
scrambling and descrambling television signals, its
function can apparently be duplicated relatively
easily by so-called "pirates".
It seems clear that if there be unauthorized
showing of the television program to which the
applicants have copyright, this would constitute an
infringement under subsections 27(1) and (5), that
is the doing of something that only the owner of
copyright may do or authorize, or permitting the
performance in public of a work without the con
sent of the owner of the copyright for private
profit.
The applicants allege, inter alia, that:
1) the display of the program at unauthorized
venues inevitably will lead to confusion over which
venues are authorized, particularly since all will
have displayed during the course of the program
the trade-marks of Titan Sports Inc., and this
confusion is compounded with advertising by
unauthorized venues;
2) loss of reputation will result from confusion
where unauthorized venues are not up to the
standards for facilities or equipment normally
required by the applicants for authorized venues
and loss of reputation will also result through
inability to control unauthorized access to their
closed circuit scrambled telecasts;
3) the operation of unauthorized venues will
expose the applicants to possible civil actions by
those to whom exclusive licences for venues have
been granted, as a result of lost revenues in ticket
sales and concession sales they may experience
from the unauthorized operations, or the value of
the applicants' program will be undermined;
4) in the long term, unless unauthorized venues
are prevented from operating, the applicants'
opportunities to establish a major business activity
may be lost; moreover, the establishment of an
effective closed circuit television industry in
Canada may be undermined.
In all, the potential financial losses, the loss of
reputation to the applicants and the threats to
their long-term interests in the industry in Canada,
through the operations of unauthorized venues,
constitute serious and irreparable prejudice and
harm. Moreover, any remedy in damages against
unauthorized users would be extremely difficult to
calculate and potential to recover is tenuous
because of the nature of the operations of unau
thorized venues, many of which are pubs, clubs,
bars and places of similar nature for general public
entertainment which may not be well funded or of
long standing.
The applicants here seek interim and interlocu
tory injunction orders, without yet having initiated
an action in this matter. Affidavit evidence was
presented from a senior officer of Titan Sports
Inc., from the Director of Security for the corpora
tion responsible for VideoCipher II technology for
scrambling and descrambling satellite television
communications, and from the corporation with
exclusive rights as closed circuit exhibitor for the
SummerSlam program in Ontario who was able to
identify unauthorized venues, the operators of
which had advertised or otherwise indicated that
they would, without authority of the applicants,
show the SummerSlam program when broadcast.
From these affidavits I conclude that the appli
cants have good reason to believe that their exclu
sive copyright interests will be infringed unless
steps are taken to prevent that, that if steps are not
taken then they will suffer irreparable harm and
that in the weighing of the balance of convenience
between the parties, the applicants' interests
deserve to be protected by injunctive relief. The
test for interlocutory or interim relief is established
by American Cyanamid Co y Ethicon Ltd, [1975]
1 All ER 504 (H.L.); Turbo Resources Limited v.
Petro Canada Inc., [1989] 2 F.C. 451; (1989), 91
N.R. 341 (C.A.); and Universal City Studios, Inc.
v. Zellers Inc., [1984] 1 F.C. 49; (1983), 73
C.P.R. (2d) 1 (T.D.). In my opinion, the require
ments for such relief have been met by the appli
cants. Moreover, they give undertaking to meet
any damages that might arise to the respondents
by the grant of an injunction at this stage of the
proceedings and counsel undertakes that action
will be commenced as soon as may be done after
August 28, 1989.
In light of Rule 469(2) of the Federal Court
Rules [C.R.C., c. 663], which limits relief in the
case of an application without notice, as this one
is, to an interim injunction for a period not exceed
ing ten days, any order to which the applicants are
entitled in this matter would be an interim order
returnable on September 5, 1989, at Ottawa,
Ontario, or as soon thereafter as may be heard by
the Court.
In addition, the applicants here seek certain
terms in an order which terms are in the nature of
"an Anton Piller order", so-called after the order
issued in Anton Piller KG v. Manufacturing Pro
cesses Ltd., [1976] Ch. 55 (C.A.). The three-fold
test enunciated in that case has come to be accept
ed as the basis on which these extraordinary orders
may issue, that is, where there is a very strong
prima facie case for an injunction, where the
damage likely to be caused to the applicant would
be very serious, and where there is a real possibili
ty that the defendant will destroy or secrete
incriminating documents or things if there is
advance notice of the order.
There seems to me no doubt that this is a strong
prima facie case and the damage to the applicants
will be very serious if their copyright interests,
which will come into being simultaneously with
their broadcast of the scrambled television signal
for the SummerSlam program, are not protected
by means appropriate to preclude use of unauthor
ized decoding or descrambling devices. Counsel
assure me that such devices can be surrendered
without effect upon the respondents' rights
through other equipment they have to have access
to other television programs broadcast by satellite.
Finally, I am satisfied on the basis of affidavits
relating experience, especially of the Director of
Security for the corporation responsible for
VideoCipher II technology that the respondents
will secrete or destroy incriminating apparatus or
docuinents if they have notice of the order here
sought. In summary, I am satisfied in the circum
stances here that the applicants make out a case
for an Anton Piller type order.
The applicants point to a somewhat similar sit
uation where Mr. Justice Henry in the Supreme
Court of Ontario granted an order of the sort here
sought, in All Canada Sports Promotions Ltd. and
B.C.L. Entertainment Corp. v. Sun Lite Systems,
Tom Kelly, et al., Court File No: 32891/88,
November 7, 1988, where relief was sought and
granted against certain venues which it was
anticipated would, without authority of the
owners, present the program of a major boxing
event telecast as a live performance in November
1988 for closed circuit television and authorized
venues only. In a later similar situation, not
referred to by counsel, Mr. Justice Strayer of this
Court granted an order to restrain unauthorized
presentation of another major boxing event tele
cast for closed circuit television. See All Canada
Sports Promotions Ltd. v. Unauthorized Receivers
of Leonard vs. Hearns Telecast, June 9, 1989,
Court File No. T-1141-89.
In so far as the order sought would order the
respondents, upon being served, to permit entry to
the designated premises by persons authorized by
the order, and the inspection of and detention of
unscrambling devices and things, I am satisfied
that the order is within the normal terms of Anton
Piller orders. See: Anton Piller, supra; Nintendo of
America, Inc. v. Coinex Video Games Inc., [1983]
2 F.C. 189; (1982), 69 C.P.R. (2d) 122 (C.A.);
Culinar Foods Inc. v. Mario's Food Products
Ltée, [1987] 2 F.C. 53; (1986), 12 C.P.R. (3d) 420
(T.D.).
In two other aspects the order sought might be
considered unusual. First, the applicants seek an
order that the respondents not only deliver up
electronic equipment identified as an unauthorized
unscrambler, but also "provide complete details as
to its purchase or rental, from whom it was
obtained and the names and addresses of any
person who assisted in the delivery of the unau
thorized descrambler". I note the serious reserva
tions expressed by Addy J. in Chin-Can Com
munication Corporation et al. v. Chinese Video
Centre Ltd. et al. (1983), 70 C.P.R. (2d) 184
(F.C.T.D.), at pages 188-189 about similar terms
of an order there sought, and his refusal to agree
to such terms. Yet this term, requiring information
about the source and supplier of the unscrambler,
is consistent with the terms of the orders issued in
both All Canada Sports Promotions Ltd. et al.
and Sun Lite Systems et al., supra; and All
Canada Sports Promotions Ltd. et al. v. Persons,
Names Unknown, who are Unauthorized Receivers
of the Ray Charles Leonard vs. Thomas Hearns
Telecast at Various Locations Across Canada,
supra. Despite reservations, in this case I agreed to
an order of the nature sought, in view of the
apparent widespread practice of unauthorized
access and presentation of the applicants' copy
right program on a previous occasion and its
expectations that the same would now be repeated.
Moreover, control of unauthorized pirating of pro
grams broadcast infrequently for closed circuit
television may only be accomplished if those seek
ing to protect their interests in their copyright can
solidify their positions to do so with each succes
sive event by gaining information about sources of
distribution of unauthorized unscramblers or
decoders.
Finally, I also agreed to an unusual provision in
the order which would preclude the respondents
from discussing the order with anyone other than
their solicitors following service upon them, the
purpose of which was to avoid information about
the applicants' efforts to serve the order and to
seek unauthorized descrambling devices from
venues that are widespread and could not all be
visited at the same time. Again, I had serious
reservations about such terms but included them
on this occasion which relates to the broadcast
twice in one night of a program in which the
applicants have copyright and which, in view of
their interests ought to be available only to those
whom they authorize. This term was included on
condition that the order sought also be modified to
permit questioning of any aspect of it, or any
matters arising from it, by any of the respondents,
or the applicants, upon 24-hours' notice rather
than proposed notice of two days. It may be worth
noting that terms of this sort, requiring informa
tion and directing a "gag order" against communi
cation, while unusual are not unknown. See: Ough,
The Mareva Injunction and Anton Piller Order,
London: Butterworths, 1987, especially at pages
120 ff., Precedent of Anton Piller order.
Two procedural matters of concern in connec
tion with the application were disposed of as
follows:
1) The applicants requested the inclusion among
authorized persons of students-at-law in addition
to solicitors employed on behalf of the applicants.
They did so because of their concern to serve and
seek enforcement of the order on a substantial
number of venues with a limited force of solicitors.
Upon assurance of counsel that students-at-law in
Ontario, the province of principal concern for
unauthorized venues, were treated at least for
some purposes as officers of the court, I agreed
that they be included.
2) The identification of the parties as respondents
(defendants) was in issue since as originally pro
posed, the draft order would have included, as in
the style of cause originally drafted in this matter,
only certain venues designated by their operating
names as establishments and John Doe, Jane Doe,
and other persons who intend without authoriza
tion from the applicants to perform or exhibit the
SummerSlam program. Counsel agreed that wher
ever names of a corporation or person operating
any of the venues was now known, they would be
designated as parties, carrying on business as in
the name of the venue. On this understanding and
with this change the order was approved so that in
final form the Order included certain legal persons
as respondents, other designated venues by the
names under which these are operated, and John
Doe and Jane Doe and other persons etc. The
inclusion as respondents of John Doe, Jane Doe
and other persons not named seemed appropriate
in this case both in relation to venues designated in
the style of cause, the owners of which were
unknown at the time the order was issued, and in
relation to operators of premises now unknown
that might be brought to the attention of the
applicants within the next few days as likely to be
unauthorized venues for presentation or display of
the program SummerSlam and upon whom the
applicants would then serve a copy of the order
issued.
The style of cause is henceforth as approved in
the Order issued herein, with respondents (defen-
dants) including names of persons or corporations
carrying on businesses as designated, certain other
venues designated by the names under which these
are operated, and finally John Doe, Jane Doe and
other persons intending without authorization to
exhibit the program SummerSlam.
In the result, with some modification the order
sought by the applicants was granted, with costs.
For the record, and for possible future reference
by counsel contemplating an application for an
Anton Piller order, the monograph by Ough, cited
above, may be of interest. In particular, the terms
suggested in the precedent for such an order, at
pages 120 ff. seem to be worth serious consider
ation.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.