Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cv-00023-JJF Document 80 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 1 of 2
Potter
N Anderson _
hl COYYOOH UP ymklgarding Drane, Jr.
Attomey at Law
. . _ _ . 68 d @ tteranderson.c0m
;`§`;(NOg1,;1MaIkd bu t 8V02aI984-2019 Direct Phone
\ll#ilmirfg(1oin,DE19899-0951 302 778*0*9 Fax
:302 984 6000
_ December 29, 2006
WWW.p0tt0l' 3.\1d€I’S( )Il.(,0IH
BY E-MAIL, E-FILE, AND BY HAND
The Honorable Joseph J. Faman, Jr.
United States District Court
844 North King Street
Lock Box 27
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Dow Chemical Canada, Inc. v. HRD Corporation; C.A. No. 05-23 (UF]
Dear Judge Farnan:
On behalf of the defendant-counterclaimant, HRD Corporation (d/b/a Marcus Oil
& Chemical) ("HRD"), I write to inform the Court, pursuant to paragraph 5(c) of the Amended
Rule 16 Scheduling Order [D.I. 57] (the "Scheduling Order"), that the parties have completed
briefing on the Motion to Compel Production of Documents that HRD filed on December 18,
2006 [D.I. 71] (HRD's Motion").
In addition, pursuant to Local District Court Civil Rule 7.1.4, I write to request
oral argument on HRD's motion. If the Court grant's HRD's request for argument, HRD
would prefer to have oral argument concerning its motion to compel as soon as possible in order
to prevent any further delay in the present litigation. HRD recognizes, however, that plaintiff/
counterclaim defendant Dow Chemical Canada Inc. and counterclaim defendant The Dow
Chemical Company (collectively, "Dow") have recently filed two motions for protective order
that may have some relevance to HRD's Motion. Because the Dow motions apparently are not
subject to the expedited briefing provisions in paragraph 5(a) of the Scheduling Order, we
anticipate that briefing on the Dow motions will not be complete until later in January. Thus,
should the Court wish to hear oral argument, the Court might wish to delay any oral argument
conceming HRD's Motion until briefing on the Dow motions has been completed, and all
motions can be heard together.

Case 1:05-cv-00023-JJF Document 80 Filed 12/29/2006 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Joseph J. Faman, Jr.
December 29, 2006
Page 2
Finally, the parties are aware that certain deadlines contained in the Scheduling
Order have expired. The parties have discussed a proposed second amended scheduling order,
which would contain deadlines contingent upon the resolution of the current discovery disputes.
HRD also has notified Dow that HRD wishes to further amend its answer and counterclaims, and
has asked Dow to consent to the amendment HRD hopes that the parties will soon be able
to agree upon these issues, and present to the Court for its consideration, a proposed amended
scheduling order.
Respectfully,
LD. llmazg ,
W. Harding Drane, Jr.
Delaware Bar I.D. #1023
WHD:mho
cc: Kenneth Nachbar, Esquire (by e-mail)
Aaron Barlow, Esquire (by e-mail)
William C. Ferebee, Esquire (by e-mail)
Michael Landrum, Esquire (by-email)
#769750/28882