Lions Gate Entm’t & Corp. v. Image Entm’t, Inc., download file, dealt with Motions for Commissions, which are often routinely granted without opposition as they are the first step in forcing someone to appear for a deposition who is beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Chancery Court.
[Sidebar: my schedule recently has been too hectic to post many case summaries, but I plan to catch up this weekend on summaries of recent cases I have not be able to post.]
In this letter opinion, the Chancery Court addressed the issues raised by 26 Motions for Commissions, most of which were denied in the context of this expedited proceeding based on the following two primary criteria: (1) Being unduly burdensome; (2) Not relevant to any issues in the litigation.
The court discussed the familiar applicable standard for obtaining discoverable information being fairly broad, if not privileged, even if it does not directly elicit admissible evidence for trial. The primary issue in the case was the reformation of the Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws. The court also addressed the applicable standard for reforming an agreement in order to express the “real agreement” of the parties involved under one of two doctrines. The first being mutual mistake and the second being unilateral mistake. The court allowed only granted 5 out of 26 motions for commissions with the following conditions: (1) That the other party receive contemporaneous copies of all written communications by the party filing the motion and third parties; (2) That the other party receive copies of documents produced in response to the subpoenas; and (3) That the other party be consulted regarding the manner and timing of production.