A recent Delaware Supreme Court opinion provides a tutorial on the standards imposed on Delaware lawyers when a deponent, who is the lawyer’s client, engages in inappropriate conduct during a deposition. See Shorenstein Hays-Nederland Theaters LLC Appeals, Nos. 596, 2018 and 620, 2018 (Del. Supr. June 20, 2019). My overview of the decision was
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:
Cartanza v. Cartanza, C.A. No. 7618-VCP (Del. Ch. July 8, 2013).
Bottom line: This short letter ruling amplified the reasoning in the court’s prior decision in this case, highlighted here, in which the court awarded fees in connection with a motion to compel a deposition. The point of this short post is…
eBay Domestic Holdings, Inc. v. Newmark, No. 3705-CC (Del. Ch. Oct. 29, 2009), read opinion here. See prior Chancery Court decisions in this case summarized here and here. This letter decision rules on a Motion to Compel discovery responses and continuations of depositions.
Background and Prior Order
There were six separate aspects of the…
In Christen v. Trados, Inc., 2008 Del. Ch. LEXIS 179, the Chancery Court ,in a letter decision, decided that a second deposition of key persons had to be taken based on documents produced after their first deposition was concluded. However the court declined, in its discretion, to award costs pursuant to Rule 37.
In re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litigation, 2008 WL 2310288 (D.Del. 2008), read opinion here. This is an opinion that should be read by anyone who wants to, or needs to, keep up to date on electronic discovery (EDD) pitfalls (read: all business litigators). The backdrop to this particular dispute in the litigation involved the inadvertent failure…