Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cv-00891-SLR _ Document 19 Filed 08/01/2006 Page 1 of 2
Reed Smith LLP
Princeton Forrestal Village
136 Main Street- Suite 250
Shen-5 A_ Affrunti Princeton, NJ 08540-7839
Direct Phone: 609.514.59so 609987-0050
Email: [email protected] FQX 609·951·0824
July 31, 2006
VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL , Y
Hon. Sue L. Robinson, Chief U.S.D.J.
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
6124 J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
844 King Street ‘
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Linda J. Blozis v. Mellon Trust of Delaware, National Association, etal
United States District Court (D.Del.) Civil Action No. 05-891 (SLR)
Dear Judge Robinson:
ln accordance with Your Honor’s instructions during the July 25, 2006 teleconference in
the above-named matter, enclosed on behalf of Defendants Mellon Trust of Delaware, National
Association, Mellon Bank, National Association and Mellon Financial Corporation (the "l\/lellon
Defendants"), please find our proposed Order Governing the Protection and Exchange of
Confidential Material (the "Discovery Confidentiality Order") for Your Honcr’s consideration.
As we recently discussed with Your Honor, counsel for the parties have agreed to the
form of the Discovery Confidentiality Order (previously drafted in the form of a "StipuIation’)
with the exception of the following sentence included at paragraph 2b. of the enclosed
document: 4
Stamping "Confidential" on the Hrst page of any bound, stapled, clipped or
rubber-banded multi-page document shall serve to designate all pages of such
L document as being confidential, unless othen/vise indicated by the producing
party. `
lt is the Mellon Defendants position that the inclusion of this sentence is necessary so
as to assure that the entirety of a multi-page document otherwise deemed confidential is
protected, even in the event of an inadvertent failure to stamp "contidential" on every page of
the document (such as, for example, a written contract or employee handbook).
While Plaintiffs counsel has never articulated a basis for Plaintiffs specific objection to
the above-referenced sentence, given that the documents to be exchanged pursuant to the
Discovery Confidentiality Order include sensitive, non-public, confidential and proprietary
business information belonging to Mellon and its clients, as well as medical and other private
information concerning Plaintiff, such a provision is aimed to protect both parties from
NEW YORK • LONDON • LOS ANGELES • PARIS • SAN FRANCISCO •WASHlNGTON. D.C. • PHILADELPHIA • PITTSBURGH • OAKLAND
MUNICH • PRINCETON • FALLS CHURCH • WILMINGTON • NEWARK • MIDLANDS, U.K. • CENTURY CITY • RICHMOND • LEESBURG
reedsmith.com
PRCLIB-383940.2-SAAFFRUN 7/31/06 5:00 PM

Case 1:05-cv-00891-SLR Document 19 Filed 08/01/2006 Page 2 of 2
Hon. Sue L. Robinson, Chief U.S.D.J.
July 31, 2006
Page 2
inadvertent disclosure. Moreover, should there be any question as any confidentiality
designation applied or to be applied to any document, there is a mechanism for inquiry stated
at paragraph 2c. of the proposed Order.
Accordingly, on behalf of the Mellon Defendants, we respectfully request that Your
Honor enter the enclosed form of Discovery Confidentiality Order.
Should the Court have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thank you. ···~—~——~c
_/‘/ S H .
ern · . ; · n i ~
SAA:lk gw —
Encl.
cc: John M. LaRosa, Esq. (via regular mail and telefax, w/encl.)