FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Raytheon Company v Lockheed Martin Corporation (No 1) [2013] FCA 587 Citation: Raytheon Company v Lockheed Martin Corporation (No 1) [2013] FCA 587 Parties: RAYTHEON COMPANY v LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION File number: NSD 1941 of 2012 Judge: PERRAM J Date of judgment: 13 June 2013 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Discovery – Application for discovery prior to the serving of evidence Cases cited: Foley v Gunns Ltd [2012] FCA 595 cited Date of hearing: 13 June 2013 Date of publication of reasons: 18 June 2013 Place: Sydney Division: GENERAL DIVISION Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 2 Counsel for the Applicant: Mr R Webb Solicitor for the Applicant: Thomsons Lawyers Counsel for the Respondent: Ms S Marks SC, Ms F Marks Solicitor for the Respondent: Logie-Smith Lanyon IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 1941 of 2012 BETWEEN: RAYTHEON COMPANY Applicant AND: LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION Respondent JUDGE: PERRAM J DATE OF ORDER: 13 JUNE 2013 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The application may be renewed after the finalisation of testamentary evidence. 3. Costs be reserved. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 1941 of 2012 BETWEEN: RAYTHEON COMPANY Applicant AND: LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION Respondent JUDGE: PERRAM J DATE: 13 JUNE 2013 PLACE: SYDNEY REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 This is an application for discovery. Ordinarily, I am disposed to make discovery orders after the evidence has been served. In an application such as the present, it is necessary, in my opinion, for the applicant for discovery to demonstrate some saving to be made by the making of a discovery order prior to the filing of testamentary evidence. 2 I have accepted that such applications can be made in the past, for example see my decision in: Foley v Gunns Ltd [2012] FCA 595. I do not think that it has been shown that there is a particularly good reason why discovery ought to be ordered in advance of the delivery of the testamentary evidence. In those circumstances, I dismiss the application. It can be renewed after the testamentary evidence has been prepared and the two issues in the proceedings have been more precisely identified. I certify that the preceding two (2) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Perram. Associate: Dated: 13 June 2013