Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01494-JJF Document 38 Filed O1/10/2006 Page 1 of 2
G reenberg
O
Tr
January 10, 2006
VIA ECF AND HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Joseph J. Parnan, Jr.
United States District Court
District of Delaware I
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Magten Asset Management Carp., et al. v. North Western Carp.,
C.A. No. 04-1494-JJF l ,,,8,,,,
Magten Asset Management Corp. v. Paul Hastings Jan0y%ky & Walker, ‘ AMSIERDIM
LLP, C.A. N0. 04-1256-JJF 1 I M
Magten Asset Management Corp. v. Mike .L Hanson and Ernie J Kindt, ; ATLANTA
C.A. No. 05-0499-JJF we ¤»~r<>~
I BOSTON
Dear Judge Farnan: 1 {HMSO
l mms
This firm is co—counsel to NorthWestern Corporation ("NorthWestern"), m,.,u,,,,,
along with the firm of Curtis, Mallet—Prevost, Colt & Mosle, in connection with C.A. No. 04- DENVER
1494—JJF, referenced above. We write in regard to the proposed consolidation and discovery I X
procedures in the above-referenced actions (the "Actions"), and in response to the letter dated l mi ‘·““"“°’**E
January 9, 2006 sent to Your Honor by counsel for plaintiffs Magten Asset Management Herman
Corporation ("Magten") and Law Debenture Trust (collectively, “Plaintiffs"). i Umms
As reported to the Court by Plaintiffs, the parties held a Rule 26(f) conference l LOS "“‘““
on January 4, 2006. The parties are in agreement that the three above-referenced actions MM
should be consolidated for purposes of discovery and other pre·trial proceedings. In addition, MMM.
the parties have agreed to exchange Initial Disclosures by January 20, 2006, limited to those i I_
matters set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(l)(A),(C), and (D), except that defendants in C.A. I W mu
No. 05-0499-JJF (the "Hanson and Kindt Action"), having previously served their Initial g NE‘*’*‘ORK
Disclosures in that action prior to the time it was transferred to this District, are not required otz¤m<1tcountY,ca
to serve any additional disclosures. I OWNED
There remains disagreement, however, with respect to the appropriate amount ”*"*““*‘*‘A
of time which should be allowed for completion of discovery in the Actions, and certain other l pagina
procedural matters. In order to resolve these issues, NorthWestern respectfully requests that l ROME,
the Court schedule a conference with the parties pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. l6 (the "Rule l6 K
COnf€r€nC€¤s)I I SILICON VMLEY
i TALLAUAGSKE
The defendants in the three actions referenced above have conferred, and l mm,
have jointly agreed upon a proposed Scheduling Order for discovery and other pre—trial I
matters in the Actions, which is enclosed herewith, and which defendants respectfully request mm CORNER
be approved by the Court. Defendants’ proposed Scheduling Order provides, inter alia, for WAS~·~¤T¤~· *>-<-
completion of fact discovery within twelve months following the Rule 16 Conference, plus ; Wm W, Bm.,
an additional two months for completion of expert discovery. IUWI
...t:
l ____..._...___
Greenberg Traurig, LLP l Attorneys at Lawl Brandywine Buildingl 1000 West Street l Suite @40 l Wilmington, DE 19801 www.gtlaw.<;orn
ra at>2.aei.rnt><> l rar aez.eei.raes

Case 1 :04-cv-01494-JJF Document 38 Filed O1 /1 O/2006 Page 2 of 2
Plaintiffs have demanded that discovery commence immediately, and have
proposed an unreasonably short period of time for the completion of discovery in the three
Actions, namely, four months for fact discovery (including document production,
depositions, and the exchange of and response to written discovery requests) plus two
additional months for expert discovery, for a total of six months. The abbreviated schedule
for completion of discovery in all three actions is particularly surprising in light of the fact
that plaintiff Magten previously agreed to a longer period for discovery in the individual
Hanson and Kindt Action, prior to the time it was transferred to this Court. In that single
action, Magten agreed to a total discovery period of thirteen months — eight months for fact
discovery, plus tive additional months for expert discovery. Defendants’ proposed fourteen-
month period for completion of fact and expert discovery in all three consolidated actions is
entirely reasonable, particularly in light of the previous schedule agreed to in the Hanson and
Kindt Action. Clearly, completion of discovery in three consolidated actions cannot be
relegated to a shorter time period than that which was previously agreed to for one of the
actions standing alone.
Another matter that requires resolution is the appointment of a Special
Master. The parties are in agreement that a Special Master should be appointed for purposes
of coordinating discovery in the Actions. NorthWestern and the other defendants have
agreed to Your Honor’s proposed appointment of Judge Bechtle. Magten, however, has
opposed Judge Becthle’s appointment. We respectfully request that this issue be taken up for
discussion at the Rule l6 Conference as well.
If Your Honor has any questions with regard to the foregoing, please feel free
to contact me or Joseph D. Pizzurro, Esq., 212-696-6196.
‘ Respectfully submitted, A
Victoria Counihan
cc: Clerk of Court (Via ECP)
Dale R. Dube, Esq. (Via E—Mail: dube@blanl Bonnie Steingart, Esq. (Via E-Mail: [email protected])
Gary L. Kaplan, Esq. (Via E-Mail: l Kathleen M. Miller, Esq. (Via E-Mail: l Bijan Amini, Esq. (Via E—Mail: [email protected])
Amanda Darwin, Esq. (Via E—Mail: [email protected])
John V. Snellings, Esq. (Via E-Mail: [email protected])
Stanley T. Kaleczyc, Esq. (Via E-Mail: [email protected])
Kimberly Beatty, Esq. (Via E—Mail: l Denise Seastone Kraft, Esq. (Via E-Mail: dl Paul Spagnoletti, Esq. (Via E—Mail: [email protected])
Joseph D. Pizzurro, Esq. (Via e-Mail: [email protected])
Steven J. Reisman, Esq. (Via E-Mail: [email protected])
Page 2
153173vl
Greenberg Traurig, LLP