• In re Ex Parte Application of Eni S.p.A.

    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.

  • Wood v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n

    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.

  • RCS Creditor Trust v. Schorsch

    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.

  • CHC Inv., LLC v. FirstSun Capital Bancorp

    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.

  • Polanco v. Amguard Ins. Co.

    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.

  • Terramar Retail Centers, LLC v. Marion #2-Seaport Trust U/A/D June 21, 2002

    Publication Date: 2018-12-26
    Practice Area: Discovery
    Industry: Financial Services and Banking | Retail
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kenneth J. Nachbar, Lauren Neal Bennett and Coleen W. Hill, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff
    for defendant: Thad J. Bracegirdle of Wilks, Lukoff & Bracegirdle, LLC; Ben D. Whitwell and Melissa C. McLaughlin, Venable LLP, Los Angeles, CA for defendant.

    Case Number: D68401

    Defendant's refusal to timely comply with document production was not justified.

  • Patrone v. Commerce Assoc. LP

    Publication Date: 2018-11-14
    Practice Area: Discovery | Dispute Resolution | Personal Injury
    Industry: Construction
    Court: Delaware Superior Court
    Judge: Judge Davis
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: D68355

    The court severed claims that were covered by an arbitration clause, but it denied a motion to dismiss on the remaining claims because discovery was necessary for the resolution of certain factual issues.

  • Int'l Constr. Prod. LLC v. Caterpillar Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-10-17
    Practice Area: Business Torts | Discovery
    Industry: Manufacturing
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Andrews
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: John W. Shaw, Nathan R. Hoeschen, David Boies, James P. Denvir, Amy J. Mauser, Christopher G. Renner and J. Wells Harrell for plaintiff
    for defendant: David J. Baldwin, Ryan C. Cicoski, Robert G. Abrams, Gregory J. Commins, Jr., Danyll W. Foix and Carey S. Busen for defendants.

    Case Number: D68321

    Although the pleading deadline in the scheduling order had expired, the court determined plaintiff made a showing of good cause because defendants delayed in providing discovery.

  • In re ExamWorks Group, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-03-07
    Practice Area: Discovery | Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Consulting | Health Care
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Laster
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Stuart M. Grant, Michael J. Barry, Jeff A. Almeida, Kimberly A. Evans, Rebecca Musarra, Vincent R. Cappucci and Jordan A. Cortez for petitioners
    for defendant: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Kevin M. Gallagher, Ryan P. Durkin, Michele D. Johnson and Kristin N. Murphy for respondent.

    Case Number: D68068

    Parties who provided late discovery without adequate explanation engaged in discovery abuse.

  • In re Simplexity, LLC

    Publication Date: 2018-01-31
    Practice Area: Bankruptcy | Discovery
    Industry:
    Court: U.S. Bankruptcy Court
    Judge: Judge Gross
    Attorneys: For plaintiff:
    for defendant:

    Case Number: D68026

    Bankruptcy trustee failed to meet the burden of proof with regard to discovery of documents which did not re-late to debtors or a shared common interest, or which related to time frames where the parties were no longer jointly represented.