Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01380-GMS Document 51 Filed 05/O2/2005 Page 1 of 2
Sears Tower, Suite 5800
233 S, Wacker Dr.
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Tel: (312) 875-7700 Fax: (312) 993-9757
www Iw com
I- H A M K I N S LLP HRM/Ar=r=lLlATE OFFICES
Boston New York
Brussels Northern Virginia
Chicago Orange County
Frankfurt Paris
May 2, Hamburg San Diego
Hong Kong San Francisco
London Shanghai
Los Angeles Silicon Valley
VIA Milan Singapore
Moscow Tokyo
Honorable Gregory M. Sleet N<¤WJ¤rS¤v W¤Shi¤¤l¤¤· ¤-IC
United States District Judge me NQ O3l484_OOO2
United States District Court
844 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: In re GST Telecom Inc., Case No. 00-1982 (GMS lg GST Telecom Inc. v.
John Warta, Civil Action No. 04cv1380 (GMS (
Dear Judge Sleet:
This letter is in response to Ricardo Pa1acio’s letter to the Court dated April 29, 2005,
regarding GST Telecom Inc.’s ("GST") Motion for Fees and Costs (D.I. 29).
The Motion for Fees and Costs requests that Warta be ordered to pay to GST $8,917.11
in costs incurred by GST as a result of Wa1ta’s failure to timely notify GST of Warta’s Motion
for Protective Order (D.l. 24), which ultimately postponed the February 8, 2005 deposition of
John Goodrich. Warta filed the Motion for Protective Order on a Friday afternoon, February 4,
two business days before the Goodrich deposition was scheduled to take place. The Motion for
Protective Order was not received by local counsel for GST until Monday morning, by which
time GST’s lead counsel, Mr. Gibbons, was on a flight to California to attend the deposition.
After landing in California, Mr. Gibbons was notified of the filing of the Motion for
Protective Order. At that point, having wasted essentially two days, Mr. Gibbons made the
judgment to use his time productively by meeting with the witness. The fees and costs requested
by GST did g include any time spent with Mr. Goodrich, and indeed, did not include additional
time spent by Mr. Gibbons on those two days. The Califomia trip would not have occurred had
GST been promptly informed of the filing of the Motion for Protective Order.
Ct1\760835.1

Case 1:04-cv-O1380—G|\/IS Document 51 Filed 05/O2/2005 Page 2 of 2
#l"$’§$L°0°$
Page 2
LATHAM&WATKl N SM
Should the Court have any questions regarding this matter, we are available at the Court’s
convenience.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Danielle S. Kemp
Danielle S. Kemp
cc: Steven Yoder, Esq.
Joseph Arellano, Esq.
Daniel Keppler, Esq.
Ricardo Palacio, Esq.
Cl·l\760835.l