A recent ruling of the Delaware Court of Chancery provides a useful refresher on the standards that must be met for various exceptions or waivers of the attorney/client privilege to apply. In Drachman v. BioDelivery Sciences International, Inc., C.A. No. 2019-0728-LWW (Del. Ch. Aug. 25, 2021), the Court addressed the following theories which, if applicable,
Rule 26
Miscellaneous Delaware Corporate and Commercial Practice Updates
By Francis Pileggi on
Posted in Uncategorized
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:
Chancery Addresses Attorney/Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine
By Francis Pileggi on
Posted in Court of Chancery Updates
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…
Discovery Practice in Delaware’s Court of Chancery
By Francis Pileggi on
Posted in Court of Chancery Updates
Lake Treasure Holdings Ltd. v. Foundry Hill GP, No. 6546-VCL (Del. Ch. Sept. 11, 2012).
Why this case is noteworthy: This ruling provides practical insight into the logistical realities of discovery practice in the Delaware Court of Chancery and the gravitas required from out-of-state attorneys who may not be familiar with the seriousness with…
Motion to Compel Granted
By Francis Pileggi on
Posted in Court of Chancery Updates
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…
Chancery Court Denies Requested Protective Order in Rohm and Haas v. Dow Chemical Litigation
By Francis Pileggi on
Posted in Court of Chancery Updates
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…