In LaPoint v. AmerisourceBergen Corp., read opinion  here, Chancellor Chandler addressed what he described as an apparently  novel issue in Delaware, i.e.,  "whether a plaintiff may have ex parte  communications with a former manager of a defendant corporation who, during her employment, was exposed to extensive privileged information while working with counsel in formulating the corporations’s defense"?

The Court interpreted Rule 4.2 of the Delaware Lawyers’ Rules of Professional Conduct, and cases and commentary that have construed the restrictions on communication with a party represented by an attorney unless counsel consents, including opinions of the ABA  Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility. In this Chancery Court letter decision, the Chancellor followed the reasoning of the majority of states and the ABA, and ruled that "one party’s attorney may contact a former manager of an adverse party ex parte, even if the  former employee was privy to extensive privileged communications, as long as the attorney is seeking only key non-privileged facts, and makes the former employee aware that she cannot divulge any communications that she may have had with the adverse party’s attorneys, or any other privileged information." (emphasis added).