Ontario-based casinos facing class action will have to hand over computer forensics investigation reports to plaintiffs following a court ruling.
Casino llamas, who claimed that the findings published in the report in question were confidential, would have to provide data to the plaintiffs. The gambling house said the report is protected by litigation privileges or attorney-client privileges, a legal principle established to protect the confidentiality of communications between legal representatives and their clients.
The computer system of the gambling house, located close to Lake Simcoe, was hacked in 2016, stealing significant amounts of data from customers, employees, and suppliers. The consequences of the hacker attack were clarified in 2017 when the Kaplan v Casino Lamar service incident occurred.
The Ontario High Court’s ruling was on the so-called transport motion, which law firms decided to proceed with class action. 카지노사이트존
For the time being, the plaintiffs, Leonid Kaplan and Cheryl Midge, are trying to sue the casino llama for a hacker attack that the casino site experienced in 2016. However, the charges against the casino have not been proven in court, with both Mr. Kaplan and Mr. Midge asking the Ontario Supreme Court to order the casino to provide documents related to the violation investigation.
two survey reports prepared by the contractor
One of the main issues to be addressed in court is the scope of breach of trust, or to say the number of people affected by hacker attacks remains to be identified, which on the other hand will affect the number of plaintiffs the court can rule on damages.
As explained above, Mr Kaplan and Mr Mizzi, who are now the plaintiffs, insisted that the infringement investigation report should be handed over to them, and Mr Casino Rama, using some information in the report, argued that only a small number of individuals were actually affected by data privacy violations.
In fact, the contractor eligible for investigation of the breach produced two reports. The first report included findings, observations and comments on hacker attacks suffered by casinos, and the second report included recommendations on how to correct the damage. However, Casino Lama did not release any data contained in the report.
As reported above, Supreme Court Justice Glustin ruled that the Defendant should disclose the report to the Plaintiffs but only to the extent related to the size and scope of the class action. The Contractor’s investigation report is used as evidence of the number of people affected by the breach, and thus as evidence of the number of potential plaintiffs who may participate in a lawsuit against the casino and receive damages.