The High Court has ordered Grant Thornton to provide limited further particulars and make discovery of four categories of documents in its case against Gerardine Scanlan over information sent to her on a CD in 2015.
In a judgment delivered on 17 October 2022, Mr Justice Dignam dealt with Ms Scanlan’s applications for further and better particulars and discovery. He did not decide whether the alleged disclosures breached confidence or whether Grant Thornton is entitled to a permanent injunction. Those issues remain for trial.
The proceedings began after Grant Thornton responded to a data access request by sending a CD which, the firm said, contained Ms Scanlan’s personal data along with information about third parties and Grant Thornton’s proprietary material. The plaintiffs initially sought damages and relief under the Data Protection Acts as well as orders concerning the information. Their current pleadings no longer seek damages or relief under those Acts. The claim now relies on alleged breach of confidence and breach of duty. The judge expressed no view on whether that claim has merit.
The judge directed Grant Thornton to clarify whether its pleaded description of a “data breach” includes the inadvertent disclosure of company proprietary information. It must also identify the third parties referred to in its pleadings, confirm if it does not know their identities, or state whether it relies only on disclosures to named individuals and posts on social media. The defendant was also directed to identify what personal or company information she allegedly disclosed to one named individual.
For discovery, the court refused to order production of the entire CD. It said that would be disproportionate and could expose third-party information that was not alleged to have been disclosed. Instead, Grant Thornton must disclose documents containing information it knows was disclosed and which it will allege Ms Scanlan disclosed, with redactions to protect the identities of people to whom the information relates.
The order also covers an internal email stream from 13 October 2015, correspondence between the plaintiffs or their solicitors and Ms Scanlan from 3 October to 4 December 2015, and specified correspondence, letters and social media posts or tweets concerning material said to comprise part of the confidential information.
The court rejected the other requests for particulars and discovery. It said many concerned matters outside the current pleadings or sought evidence and admissions rather than clarification of the case. The judge will hear from the parties on the time allowed for the particulars and discovery.