Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv-00371-IVIPT Document 30 Filed 07/31 /2007 Page 1 of 2
N A if L Reed Smith LLP
1201 Market Street
Suite 1500
David E_ wjjks Wilmington, DE 19801-1163
oireer Phone: a02.77a.7560 302-778-7500
Email: ¤waiks@ree¤sm1rn.c¤m Fax 302-778-7575
July 31, 2007 `
Via Electronic Filing and Hand Delivery
The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge
U.S. District Court, District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Lock Box 8
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Security Networks, LLC v. Alarm One, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 07-371-***
Dear Magistrate Judge Thynge:
I have reviewed Mr. Naughton’s letter to Your Honor of this morning and am compelled to
respond briefly. Mr. Naughton did not raise his proposals with Security Networks in response to
Security Networks’ invitation to confer, but rather enveloped them within his remarks on the merits of
this case in the context of a Rule 16 scheduling conference. Security Networks will not burden the
A _ Court with a rebuttal of all of Mr. Naughton’s points on the merits, but will instead await a more .
appropriate venue for that discussion. °
It is important, however, to advise the Court that the Benchmark award that is the subject of this
litigation was presented by Benchmark as a final award and the pa1ties’ agreement underlying their
relationship provides that the Benchmark arbitration is "final and binding on the Parties." Similarly, Mr.
Naughton’s suggestion that the Benchmark proceedings were "not an arbitration” is impossible to
reconcile with the agreement’s characterization of Benchmark as the "lndependent Arbiter."
Accordingly, Security Networks respectfully submits that this action filed pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 5713 ·
to confirm an arbitration award is in fact a summary proceeding and not a de novo re-litigation of the
dispute which the parties have already arbitrated.
Security Networks therefore respectfully requests that the Court enter a scheduling order
reflecting the true nature of these proceedings and rejecting Alarm One’s most recent efforts to delay the
entry of an enforceable judgment against it. We look forward to discussing this matter with Your Honor
on August 2, 2007.
NEW YORK • LONDON • LOS ANGELES • PARIS • SAN FRANCISCO • WASHINGTON, D.C. • PHILADELPHIA • PITTSBURGH • OAKLAND
MUNICH • PRINCETON • FALLS CHURCH • WILMINGTON • NEWARK 0 MIDLANDS, U.K. • CENTURY CITY • RICHMOND • LEESBURG K '>
reedsmith.com

Case 1 :07-cx/#00371-IVIPT Document 30 Filed 07/31/2007 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge
July 31, 2007
Page 2
Thank you for Your Honor's consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
REED SMITH LLP
was Q ( will
7 David E. Wilks ( _
DEW/me
cc: Clerk (via Electronic Filing)
All Counsel (via Electronic Filing)