Tag Archives: Rule 26

Miscellaneous Delaware Corporate and Commercial Practice Updates

This post is an aggregation of miscellaneous worthwhile Delaware corporate litigation developments that was easier to present as one post instead of multiple smaller posts: 1.     Case Law Regarding Importance of Formalities to Modify Pretrial Scheduling Orders: A Delaware Supreme Court opinion of several years ago, highlighted on these pages, emphasized that informal extensions of a … Continue Reading

Chancery Addresses Attorney/Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine

JPMorgan Chase & Co. v. American Century Companies, Inc., C.A. No. 6875-VCN (Del. Ch. April 18, 2013). Issue Addressed: Whether the attorney/client privilege and work product doctrine were defenses to a motion to compel? Short Answer:  Yes in part and no in part. Brief Overview This letter decision provides a useful application of both the attorney/client … Continue Reading

Motion to Compel Granted

In re: John Q. Hammons Hotels, Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Del. Ch., No. 758-CC (March 25, 2009), read letter decision here. This Chancery Court ruling granted a motion to compel pursuant to Rule 26(b)(1)  for post-merger financial data. This case involved a shareholder class action arising out of a merger transaction. The court described the very broad scope … Continue Reading

Chancery Court Denies Requested Protective Order in Rohm and Haas v. Dow Chemical Litigation

Rohm and Haas Co. v. The Dow Chemical Co., (Del. Ch., Feb. 19, 2009), read letter decision here. The Chancery Court denied a Motion for Protective Order filed by proposed third-party deponents in this procedural ruling. Dow sought to depose several members of the Haas family who were also trustees of the trust that is a … Continue Reading