Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01443-GMS Document 88 Filed O2/O9/2006 Page 1 of 2
Yoono CoNAwAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
31;:% ét§§rt"“·*“ ??;t&‘£‘Et;Ert¥%:““ THE BMNDYWM BUILDING t;§i§·ii£?.Ei2§é**“°” °"L° S 1?S?;$r§éFtt;a..r
Siiarnow SANDLER Roaanr S. Bn~xDY 1000 WEST STREET 17TH FLOOR Gnaoonr J. BAacocr< :\NDRlEW A. Lwocnax
RICHARD A. Lavixa JoaL A. \vA1ra ’ JOSEPH M. BARRY MAi·r11awB. Luxx
R1c1LAnn.A.?,Anr·A Bnar¢rC.S1~LA1=1=an WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801 SEANM.BEACH JOSEPHA\.h·l.~\LFIT.-\Y*JO
FREDERICK W. toast DANIEL P. Jorixsor: DONALD J. Bowxrm. Jn. ADRIA B. MAnt1>:aLL1
RICHARD H. Monsa TOR.-\lG D. gina.;} P.O. BOX 391 Esrotgv P. CAIR}? tiica-xaL\\‘;1ppDan\iorr
D. ' CM B · IMOTHY AY OUSE.-KL Y i , ·R. .MMOND DYLE RIBETH .; ENELLA
Jo;i;i~[i~rxi.r»gci§}o1i;ox BnaNt>AN L1NaHAN Sitnwox Wn‘MH\`GTO:\’ DELA“' ARE *9898039* Mgtklgi.-\I?ET M. DIBIANCA Ediiow L. Montes
CrLA1oA. mnswriz MAnr1:~: S. LESSNER (302) 5-/L6600 M.-xnv F. DUGAN D. Fox MUl'l`AXl.\R.—\·\V;\LKIiF{
BAnnr M. \v1LLouG1~1av PAULINE K. Mondo: _ ERIN Et>wAnr>s Jaxrsiaan R. NOEL
Josv W. INGERSOLL C. BARR FLi>:N (SOO) ZJ}-2234 (DE ONLY) KENNETH]. Enos Ar;>Ari W. Porr
Awt1~1o>;vG. FLx1~;r·: NAT.-\LIE \VOLF FAX; (302) 57l_T253 JAN S.Fnananrc1 Janoxia K. Gnossr1Ar~: LISA B. GOODMAN JAr»1as J. GALLAGHER rircnarr SiiannarrA
?“I?f*f 1 ‘°"“"‘*a*‘° Pi? ll? iltiits rr `—”""` §$€§L§\$§fEi“1i2a iliiilrftliiwmrr
niirilaizf D`D\ii;.l;H.~\l’:ROS V HO W EST PINEFTREET DAWN $1. Jonas A V iIiiAri$.C.Stovbnr$.Cii\L~r1
\\`lLLl.·\\Z D. Jorixstox M1c1~LAaL R. Nasron P.O. Box :94 Ricrunn S. JLiL1a Joan E, Trmcav
Tuioriiv J. Srwnan M.~\L’REEN D. Luna GwRGEw\»,»N_ ghLA“-ARE 19947 Jonas E. KELLER xmnoxnar B. Wiiirasmx
Bnrica 1.. Siixansrarx ROLJN P. B1ssaLL _ j _ __ Jax>:1ran>1.1<1xi;cs Sazrnox M.Z1ao
\\'ILLi.·¤.}»·Z W. Bowsan Scott A. Hou (JO-) S’6‘-wm EowAnr>J. Kosxiowsni
Lxnnv J. Trtirxrrrcos Jo1i>:T. Donsav (800) 255·2234 (DE O>;Lx‘)
in.-iz ·t.. A. · ,` - A
U JR \\`RlGl5T FAD; (:02) S>6`9"3S SPECIAL COUNSEL SENIOR C`<.rUNSiii.
`.ssA.‘1· . · s Dr.‘·L·G .,.. ,. . , .. ‘.‘D.5.l`L.-x"1.‘.]r. L*rr:JC‘ \`TZ·!l
&.2.r..§§};i»E??§§T rakifpiséiim -·-r~¤<>¤¤¤¤<>~A-·—¤~ ·¤<>M {5122.. C. §attfiL“` “ C ‘ " ””
Tanasix A. Caaar; NOlL\i.¤`N A1. Powarr KAnar~s L. PAscALa ` Orpocxsa:.
DIRECT nist; 302·57l—6672 """*‘°"·*·‘*· “‘“"°” gQ;;jj,§’é}gj;§§.E,,,__N
D1nacrFAx: 302-576-3301
[email protected]
February 9, 2006
BY CM/ECP AND HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
United States District Court
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: National Starch v. Cargill Inc., et al., C.A. No. 04-1443-GMS
Dear Judge Sleet:
We write on behalf of Plaintiffs National Starch and Penford regarding an
impending discovery and schedule change issue that may arise in light of Defendants’ February
l, 2006 motion for leave to amend their answers and counterclaims.
Both fact and expert discovery are rapidly coming to a close. Pursuant to the
Scheduling Order entered by the Court, fact discovery ends next week, Wednesday, February I5,
2006. Opening Expert reports must be served on March I, 2006 and responsive expert reports
are to be served on March 20, 2006.
Despite this, Defendants have petitioned the court for leave to amend their
answers and counterclaims in order to add new claims of inequitable conduct and unfair
competition. Plaintiffs strongly believe that there is no merit to Defendants’ motion and that the
Court should deny Defendants’ request for leave to amend, which was filed more than four
months after the September 30, 2005 deadline for amending pleadings mandated by the
Scheduling Order. Plaintiffs have filed a brief opposing this motion today that more fully
explains Plaintiffs’ position.
Further, if the Court decides to grant Defendants’ motion, it will be impossible for
Plaintiffs to complete fact and expert discovery and properly respond to and defend against the
DBOl:l990386.l 06363l.l00l

Case 1:04-cv-O1443—Gl\/IS Document 88 Filed O2/O9/2006 Page 2 of 2
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
February 9, 2006
Page 2
new allegations under the current Scheduling Order. Addition of the inequitable conduct and
unfair competition claims will import a number of new issues into the case, including subjective
issues of intent as well as defendants’ alleged harm resulting from the claimed unfair
competition, that have not yet been subject to fact discovery. Moreover, it will not be possible to
locate and prepare new experts to deal with these proposed claims before the March lst expert
report deadline.
We are not sure how to proceed with regard to this problem, but in light of the
potential impact on the current schedule posed by the motion to amend, and in light of the
Court’s suggestion that we contact chambers earlier rather than later when scheduling issues
arise, we were hopeful that Your Honor would consider scheduling a teleconference in the near
future so as to decide how to proceed. In any event, we would be appreciative of the Court’s
guidance on this issue.
Respectfully submitted,
J my li/. Dig erse lf br] LLM! S/a ver
Josy W. Ingersoll (No. 1088)
JWI:cg
cc: Clerk of the Court - by CM/ECF and hand delivery
Thomas L. Halkowski, Esquire - by CM/ECE and hand delivery
Gregory Madera, Esquire — by e—mail
Michael Florey, Esquire — by e-mail
Richard L. DeLucia, Esquire - by e-mail
DB0l:l990386.l ossezrioot