On September 12, 2021, the court (the Honorable Justice R. Ronen) ordered that once a decision has been made on the motions for approval, the proceedings must be conducted simultaneously, and if additional arguments arise that will require clarification regarding the possibility of waiting for certain decisions in the framework of the class action hearing, they will be discussed on their merits.
On December 22, 2021, the defendants filed their statement of defense.
- On April 27, 2022, the case was transferred to my care, and on June 28, 2022, a preliminary hearing was held, in which the plaintiff's counsel requested that the testimonies brought before the court in the framework of Halfon's motion be included as evidence in the case. At the end of the hearing, the parties sought to examine the possibility of reaching factual agreements, but this attempt was unsuccessful.
In my decision of August 24, 2022, I clarified that in the absence of procedural consent, it is not possible to accept the cross-examinations of the witnesses heard at Halfon's request as evidence, without hearing the witnesses. As part of my decision, I permitted the plaintiff to request the summoning of witnesses on the date of the submission of affidavits of the main witness on his behalf.
On August 31, 2022, the plaintiff's affidavit was filed, and a few days later, a notice was filed of the list of witnesses he intends to invite to testify - the plaintiff's wife, the defendants, and Adv. Meiri, who will represent the company on the relevant dates. The defendants objected to this request, both for reasons of the merits of the motion and in view of its timing, when the plaintiff requested the summons of the defendants before it was clarified whether their affidavits would be submitted.
- On November 10, 2022, the defendants submitted as affidavits of the main witness on their behalf, the affidavits of Levy and Ashkenazi, which were submitted as part of the Halfon motion, as well as the transcripts of their testimonies. Submitted: Ashkenazi affidavit in support of the respondents' response to Halfon's request (hereinafter: Ashkenazi affidavit); The transcript of Ashkenazi's cross-examination at Halfon's request (hereinafter: Ashkenazi's testimony at Halfon's request); Levy's affidavit in support of the respondents' response to Halfon's request (hereinafter: Levy Affidavit 1); Levy's affidavit in support of the respondents' response to the request for urgent leave to amend the statement of claim in the framework of the Halfon application (hereinafter: Affidavit of Levy 2); Levy's affidavit in support of the Respondents' response to the Applicant's response to their response (hereinafter: Affidavit of Levy 3); The transcript of Levy's cross-examination in the framework of Halfon's request (hereinafter: Levy's testimony at Halfon's request).
The defendants clarified that in their opinion, the plaintiff's request was granted in full and there was no need to hear witnesses in the case.
- On February 14, 2023, after hearing the arguments of the parties, I accepted the plaintiff's request and also allowed the submission of an affidavit by the plaintiff's wife, as well as the holding of short supplementary cross-examinations for witnesses on behalf of the defendants. It was also agreed to submit the affidavit of Adv. Meiri, which was submitted as part of the Halfon request, and the transcript of his testimony (hereinafter: Affidavit of Adv. Meiri andTestimony of Adv. Meiri at Halfon's request respectively).
- The date for hearing evidence was postponed several times, for reasons relating to Ashkenazi and later for reasons relating to the plaintiff's medical condition, and the testimonies of the witnesses were heard on January 21, 2024.
At the end of the hearing of the evidence, counsel for the defendants stated that as long as the parties' summaries had not been submitted, the defendants would be willing to agree that the plaintiff would return to the class represented in the class action in which a motion for approval of a settlement was filed, so that he could receive compensation in this framework. This, taking into account that in the proceeding here, the plaintiff may "come out with his hands on his head." At the same time, the defendants clarified that to the extent that the plaintiff insists on continuing to conduct the proceeding, they will request a ruling on real costs. The plaintiff's counsel refused the offer, saying that in his opinion it was a "joke" (minutes of the hearing, page 29, 29 to 30, 4).