Discovery ordered of documents evidencing use of drone over quarry lands

High Court – discovery – six categories sought – five categories agreed – one category disputed between the parties – plaintiffs had obtained interlocutory injunctive relief that, pending the hearing of the action, the defendant would not enter onto remain upon or interfere with the first named plaintiff’s property or any other of the plaintiffs’ properties – plaintiffs pleaded that the defendant wrongfully entered upon part of the properties and make a digital/video recording of the property and the plaintiff’s employees working there – plaintiffs sought discovery of all documents that records the use of a drone owned and/or operated by the defendant in a number of locations and on certain dates – category referred to “over or in the vicinity of the plaintiff’s lands” – Court held that that there were no ownership rights held by the plaintiffs in lands that they did not own and in the airspace over such lands – Court held that activity on property owned by another party “in the vicinity of” the plaintiffs’ land would not constitute trespass to the plaintiffs’ lands – Court amended category in order to reflect whether there was activity “on or over the plaintiff’s lands” at the various locations.