Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01551-JJF Document 267 Filed 06/O1/2007 Page 1 of 2
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
1201 NORTH MARKET STREET
P.O. Box 1347
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899-1347
302 658 9200
302 658 3989 FAX
WILLIAM H. SUDELL, JR.
302 351 9284
302 425 4685 FAX
wsuclell@mnat. com
June 1, 2007
E-FILED AND HAND DELIVERED
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. A
United States District Court
District of Delaware ‘
844 N. King Street
Room 4124, Lockbox 27
Wilmington, DE 19801
RE: Charles A. Stanziale v. Pepper Hamilton, etal., No. 04-1551
Royal Indemnity Co. v. Pepper Hamilton LLP, etal., No. 05-165
Dear Judge Farnan: `
l write in response to the May 30, 2007 letter to Your Honor from Philip Trainer, Jr.
and with respect to the proposed revised case management order submitted therewith.
The proposed revised case management order submitted by Plaintiffs presumes that
Your Honor will grant Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the Court’s May 25, 2007
Memorandum Order. Defendants have opposed Plaintiffs’ motion, and for the reasons set forth
in that opposition believe that the Court’s May 25 Memorandum Order shouldstand. Even after
the Court’s striking of three tainted experts, Plaintiffs have ten (10) testifying experts with
respect to whom Defendants will have an approximately equal number of responsive experts.
There is simply much too much work to do in respect of expert discovery and summary
judgment already on our plates in the limited time permitted for Plaintiffs at this very late date to
add several new experts and start the process all over again.

Case 1:O4—cv—O1551-JJF Document 267 Filed 06/O1/2007 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
June 1, 2007 »
Page Two
The schedule proposed by Plaintiffs is, in any event, inappropriate in light of the
scheduled trial setting (which Pepper Hamilton LLP does not wish to delay):
· There will be on the order of 20 testifying experts at trial (not counting the
three stricken experts). The proposed schedule submitted by Plaintiffs
provides only 25 business days (during August) for all expert discovery.
· We anticipate the filing of serious stunmary judgment motions of the kind
frequently granted in respect of claims such as those brought by the Trustee
and Royal. The proposed schedule submitted by Plaintiffs contemplates
letters to the Court requesting leave to so move on July 30. Asstuning leave is
granted, briefing on such motions would not be completed until just days
before the scheduled start of trial, thus depriving the Court of any meaningful
opportunity to consider summary judgment.
The Court should maintain the current trial setting, deny Plaintiffs’ "Emergency
Motion," and enter the revised scheduling order that I submitted on behalf of Defendants by
letter dated May 30, which is fully consistent with the Court’s May 25 Memorandtmi Order.
Respectfully Submitted,
M4 4%%% 2 D.! 5
. / K $ /de/,*4.Séq
William H. Sudell, Jr.
WHS/clh
cc: All Counsel on Attached Service List L
846303