Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
47 results for '* topic:"Discovery"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2023-03-21
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: E-Commerce | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: A. Thompson Bayliss, Daniel J. McBride, Anthony R. Sarna, Abrams & Bayliss LLP, Wilmington, DE for petitioners.
for defendant: Paul J. Lockwood, Jenness E. Parker, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; Patricia L. Enerio, Jamie L. Brown, Aaron M. Nelson, Elizabeth A. DeFelice, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephen J. Senderowitz, Dentons, Chicago, IL; Douglas W. Henkin, Dentons, New York, NY for respondents.
Case Number: 2022-0344-JTL
Court granted motion to compel on the grounds that defendant corporation could not invoke the attorney-client privilege as a means to withhold materials within a certain time frame spanning over two years. The court did however hold that the corporation could assert the privilege regarding communications that were related to books and records that the director had intentionally released, thus removing it from the circle of confidentiality.
Publication Date: 2022-12-27
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Legal Services | Real Estate
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jeremy D. Anderson, Fish & Richardson P.C., Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
for defendant: Steven L. Caponi, K&L Gates, LLP, Wilmington, DE; Dieter Walter Neupert, pro se defendant for defendants.
Case Number: 2017-0290-JTL
The court granted letters of request to procure discovery from non-party individuals located in Israel.
Publication Date: 2022-12-06
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Chemicals and Materials | Energy
Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Judge: Judge Goldblatt
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: 18-50489 (CTG)
The court denied plaintiff's motion to compel the production of documents protected under the attorney-client privilege doctrine.
Publication Date: 2022-02-15
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Technology Media and Telecom | Transportation
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Joel Friedlander, Jeffrey M. Gorris, David Hahn, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Randall J. Baron, David A. Knotts, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, San Diego, CA; Christopher H. Lyons, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Nashville, TN for petitioners.
for defendant: David J. Teklits, Thomas P. Will, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; William D. Savitt, Anitha Reddy, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, New York, NY for respondent.
Case Number: D69714
The court held that appraisal petitioners should not be allowed to obtain full discovery in this appraisal proceeding because it was commenced for the purpose of conducting pre-suit investigation for evidence of breach of fiduciary duty.
Publication Date: 2021-09-29
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Electronics | Software | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: Delaware Superior Court
Judge: Judge Davies
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan, Farnan LLP, Wilmington, DE; Rodney Smolla, Wilmington, DE; Justin A. Nelson, Susman Godfrey LLP, Houston, TX; Stephen Shackleford, Jr., Elisha Barron, Susman Godfrey LLP, New York, NY; Davida Brook, Emily Cronin, Brittany Fowler, Susman Godfrey LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Stephen E. Morrissey, Susman Godfrey LLP, Seattle, WA; Thomas A. Clare, P.C; Megan L. Meier, Dustin A. Pusch, Daniel P. Watkins, Clare Locke LLP, Alexandria, VA for plaintiffs.
for defendant: R. Bruce McNew, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Howard Kleinhendler, New York, NY for nonparties Defending the Republic, Inc. and Sidney Powell.
Case Number: D69553
Nonparties were not entitled to reargument, because the court's order only involved issuance of a subpoena and nonparties failed to show that the court overlooked legal precedent or misapprehended the law or facts in a way that affected the outcome of the order.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: George Bochetto, David P. Heim, John A. O’Connell, Robert S. Tintner
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2021-04-07
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Energy
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Daniel Bartley Rath, Rebecca Lyn Butcher, Jennifer L. Cree, Landis Rath & Cobb LLP, Wilmington, DE; Nicolas Bourtin, Beth D. Newton, Michele C. Materni, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, NY for applicant.
for defendant: David E. Ross, Ross Aronstam & Moritz LLP, Wilmington, DE for respondents.
Case Number: D69352
Court granted ex parte application for discovery for use in foreign proceedings where arbitration established by international treaty qualified as a foreign proceeding and where parties seeking to quash subpoenas failed to show the discovery would be inadmissible in foreign proceedings or that those proceedings had already denied similar discovery demands.
Publication Date: 2021-02-17
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Insurance | Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Michael W. Teichman, Elio Battista, Jr., Judy M. Jones, Parkowski, Guerke & Swayze, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Eric P. Haas, Gardner Haas PLLC, Dallas, TX for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Paul D. Brown, Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP, Wilmington, DE; William B. Kerr, Kerr, LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69301
The court granted plaintiffs' motion to compel production, and it denied defendants' motion for a retroac-tive extension of time in which to respond to plaintiffs' discovery requests.
Publication Date: 2020-04-08
Practice Area: Discovery
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Philip Trainer, Jr. and Marie M. Degnan, Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, DE; John P. Coffey, Gregory A. Horowitz and Anna K. Ostrom, Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel, New York, NY for plaintiff.
for defendant: Elizabeth A. Sloan and Brittany M. Giusini of Ballard Spahr LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Miller, Evan Glassman, Michael G. Scavelli, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, New York, NY; Mark Murphy, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, Washington, DC for defendant Block. Daniel A. Mason, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Allan J. Arffa, Gregory F. Laufer and Jeremy A. Benjamin, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, New York, NY for remaining defendants.
Case Number: D68939
Communications between plaintiff's counsel and a third party were subject to the attorney-client privilege based on the com-mon interest doctrine. Motion to compel denied.
Publication Date: 2019-02-06
Practice Area: Corporate Entities | Discovery
Industry: Investments and Investment Advisory
Court: Court of Chancery
Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
Attorneys: For plaintiff: James D. Taylor, Jr., Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr LLP, Wilmington, DE; Michael C. Manning, Jeffrey J. Goulder, Stefan M. Palys, and Christy M. Milliken, Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Phoenix, AZ for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jon E. Abramczyk, William M. Lafferty, and Sabrina M. Hendershot, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lawrence Portnoy and Julia Kiechel, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New York, NY for defendant.
Case Number: D68447
Section 220 complaint was dismissed after stockholder had filed plenary action against corporation and could not demonstrate timing pressures created by defendant or need to discover additional information following a dismissal without prejudice.
Publication Date: 2019-01-09
Practice Area: Discovery | Insurance Law
Industry: Insurance
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: John S. Spadaro, John Sheehan Spadaro, LLC, Smyrna, DE for plaintiff;
for defendant: Michael R. Abbott, Cipriani & Werner, P.C., Wilmington, DE for defendant.
Case Number: D68414
Because courts could take additional evidence to support a removal notice's allegations with respect to the amount-in-controversy requirement, the court could grant a removing defendant's motion for leave to conduct discovery on the requirement to oppose plaintiff's motion to remand.
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read