Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07—cv—00265-SLR-LPS Document 80 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 1 of 2
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
1116WEsT STREET · WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801
TEL:3O2.472.73OO · FAx:3O2.472.732O -www.RRocToRHEYMAN.coM
Direct Dial: (302) 472-7301
Email: vproctorgbgroctorheymair.com
October 11, 2007
BY E-FILING
The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge
United States Magistrate Judge
J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
844 N. King Street
Room 6100, Lockbox 8
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Collins & Aikman Corp., et al. v. Stockman, et al., C.A. No. 07-00265-1***
Dear Magistrate Judge Thynge:
We are counsel for defendant David R. Cosgrove in the above-captioned matter. We
write on behalf of all defendants except KPMG and PriceWaterhouseCoopers1 to request that the
Rule 16 teleconference in the case, currently scheduled for October 24, 2007, be adjourned tmtil
resolution of various case-dispositive motions that are currently being briefed. For the following
reasons, adjourning the Rule 16 conference until the motions are resolved will aid in
streamlining and expediting litigation of the case.
First, because the referenced motions may substantially affect the scope and location of
the case, and the timing of discovery, holding the Rule 16 teleconference after such motions are
resolved will ensure that the Court’s discovery schedule is appropriate for the case. As of the
current date, thirteen separate motions to dismiss have been filed, and defendants Stepp, Koth,
Cosgrove, Bamaba, Krause, and Galante have also tiled a joint motion to transfer the case to the
Eastern District of Michigan (D.I. 61). The parties have agreed to a schedule for further briefing
of these motions and, with the consent of the defendants, plaintiffs have submitted to the Court a
stipulation extending plaintiffs’ time to respond to the motions to December 4, 2007, with
I Additionally, plaintiffs’ counsel were contacted regarding this request, but the plaintiffs
declined to join.
2 The following defendants have moved to dismiss: Krause and Koth (D.I. 23), McCallum (D.I.
25), Evans (D.I. 28), Cosgrove (D.I. 31), Stepp (D.I. 33), Bamaba (D.I. 36), Treadwell,
McConnell and Valenti (D.I. 37), Heartland Industrial Partners LP, Heartland Industrial
Associates LLC, Heartland Industrial Group LLC (D.I. 42), PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (D.I.
46), KPMG (D.I. 48), Becker (D.I. 50), Stockrnan (D.I. 55), and Hess (D.I.. 66).

Case 1:07—cv—00265-SLR-LPS Document 80 Filed 10/11/2007 Page 2 of 2
H The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge
October 11, 2007
Page 2
defendants’ reply briefs due on January 28, 2008.3 Resolution of the motions to dismiss and to
transfer will certainly determine the future scope of the case, not to mention its venue, and this
will necessarily affect the scope and course of discovery. Therefore, any schedule for discovery
set before such resolution would likely be premature.
Second, setting a realistic discovery schedule at this time may prove difficult because,
pursuant to the PSLRA, discovery in the case must be stayed until resolution of the motions to
dismiss. 15 U.S.C. § 77z-1(b)(1); 15 U.S.C. § 78u—4(b)(3)(B). Since discovery cannot proceed
until the motions to dismiss are resolved, discovery deadlines set before resolution of the
motions will have little relation to amount of time required to actually complete discovery, and
might amotmt to guesswork.
Accordingly, the above-referenced defendants respectfully request that the Court adjourn
the Rule 16 conference until the defendants’ motions are resolved.
Respectfully,
/ mae/so
Vemon R. Proctor (#1019)
cc: Joseph A. Rosenthal, Esquire (by e-filing)
Carmella P. Keener, Esquire (by e-tiling)
Peter B. Ladig, Esquire (by e-filing)
Thomas P. Preston, Esquire (by e-filing)
Thomas G. Macauley, Esquire (by e-filing)
James L. Holzman, Esquire (by e-filing)
Christian Douglas Wright, Esquire (by e—filing)
Anne C. Foster, Esquire (by e—filing)
Michael J. Maimone, Esquire (by e—iiling)
Kemieth J. Nachbar, Esquire (by e—filing)
Robert S. Satmders, Esquire (by e-filing)
Albert H. Manwaring, IV, Esquire (by e—filing)
Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire (by e-filing)
Clerk, U.S. District Court (by e-filing)
3 In addition, Defendant KPMG has filed a motion to stay the action pending arbitration, (D.I.
58), and the Court has approved a stipulation to toll the time for Plaintiffs to respond pending
resolution ofthe motions to dismiss. (D.I. 75).