Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01452-JJF

Document 53

Filed 03/21/2006

Page 1 of 1
David E. Moore

1313 North Market Street P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899-0951 302 984-6000 www.potteranderson.com

Attorney at Law [email protected] 302 984-6147 Direct Phone 302 658-1192 Fax

March 21, 2006 VIA ELECTRONIC FILING The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. United States District Court for the District of Delaware 844 King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Re: E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp. C. A. No. 04-1452

Dear Judge Farnan: As counsel for DuPont we feel compelled to respond to an argument raised in Defendant's Reply Brief on Its Motion for Leave to File Early Summary Judgment Motion (D.I. 52), which was filed yesterday. Namely, Defendant's argument that they should prevail on the pending motion because DuPont did not file a Rule 56(f) affidavit is premature and inappropriate at this time. Under Your Honor's summary judgment procedures, such an argument would only be proper if Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Early Summary Judgment is granted. In effect, Defendant's argument presumes that the pending Motion for Leave to File Early Summary Judgment has already been granted. Finally, as indicated in DuPont's Opposition to Great Lakes' Motion for Leave (D.I. 51, p.3, n.1), DuPont intends to oppose the proposed early motion for summary judgment should leave to file be granted, and pursuant to the Court's standing Memorandum Order, to file a Counter-Statement certifying that genuine issues of material fact exist and setting forth the material facts disputed by DuPont. Respectfully, /s/ David E. Moore David E. Moore
724588

cc:

Alyssa M. Schwartz (via electronic filing) Richard D. Harris (via electronic mail) Bruce DeRenzi (via electronic mail)