In Brandt v. CNS Response, Inc., Nos. 4867 and 4688-CC (Del. Ch. Nov. 12, 2009), read letter decision here, the Court of Chancery denied a motion for protective order that was filed in an effort to prevent depositions of two witnesses in this expedited matter seeking injunctive relief that is scheduled for a trial on December 1. The Court relied on Court of Chancery Rule 26(b)(1) regarding the general scope of allowable discovery, where: "… it relates to the claim or defense of the party seeking discovery…."
The Court was not persuaded by the arguments that depositions were already scheduled "all over the country" as most were already planned to be taken in Irvine, California, nor was the Court convinced that other depositions would be sufficient to cover the issues sought from the prospective deponents. The Court described the factual details on which its decision was based, and also warned the party taking the depositions that it would be expected to adhere to the representations made to the Court that the depositions of the deponents involved would be short and narrowly focused on the issues for which the depositions were requested.