Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 55.5 kB
Pages: 2
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 382 Words, 2,565 Characters
Page Size: 583.68 x 768 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8774/68-3.pdf

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 55.5 kB)


Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:O4—cv—O1422-GI\/IS Document 68-3 Filed O3/21/2007 Page1 0f2

. li
Case 1 :04-c -01422- A 6 - ` - .
V Gs“Etr€‘Zii*'b€Eir£v?¢An'Ft'9d °"’”2"2°"7 Pa st qi
5;* DEPARTMENT or Jnsrrca . § fi 1
it ,0 0;. 1
"¢¤_ “’°®“" ye? CARL C. DANBERG vg? gv r
"`°····¤¤·*‘°` Attorney General OF DE)?
NEW CASTLE COUNTY KENT COUNTY SUSSEX COUNTY
Carvel State Building 102 West Water Street 114 E. Market Street
820 N. French Street Dover, DE 19904 Georgetown, DE 19947
Wilmington, DE 19801 Criminal Division (302) 739-4211 (302) 856-5352 .
Criminal Division (302) 577-8500 Fax: (302) 739-6727 Fax: (302) 856-5369
Fax: (302) 577-2496 Civil Division (302) 739-7641 TTY: (302) 856-2500
Civil Division (302) 577-8400 Fax: (302) 739-7652
Fax: (302) 577-6630 TTY: (302) 739-1545
‘ TTY: (302) 577-5783
November 8, 2006
PLEASE REPIL¥YI'Q}S[l€ County-Civil Division] A A 1
_ Gary W. Aber, Esquire ` A ’ _ n i
Aber, Goldlust, Baker & Over i E ·
702 King Street, Suite 600 V "T ’ . . ‘
P.O.Box1675 Q ‘ __,_ U i
Wilmington, DE 19899-1675 _ __ I
r · NOV 14 l
RE: Hamilton v. Guessford, et al. id ,_, f ,
C.A. No. 04-1422 - GMS L`—··~——·—————————~ “"
. i 5
Ahn- -i.,. - ...., ¤ 1
Dear Gary: A
1
I am writing in response to your letter dated October 30, 2006 in which you
request production of the documents identified as privileged in my October 19, 2006
letter to you.
Your position that Defendants have waived the attorney-client privilege by
_ asserting a qualified immunity defense is not supported by the case law. Defendants have
not asserted a defense based on the advice of counsel. As the Third Circuit has held, the
attorney—client privilege is not waived merely because the party’s state of mind is at
issue. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc. v. Home Inclem. C0., 32 F.3d 851, 864 (1994). The
Third Circuit has specifically rejected the reasoning in Hearn v. Rhay, a case which you
cite in your letter. Id. Finally, you have relied on case law which does not support your
argument. For example, In re AT &T Access Charge Litigation follows the holding in E
Rhone-Poalenc.
ln short, Defendants will not produce documents properly protected from
discovery by the attorney—client privilege.
E V Sincerely,
Qian
Eileen Kelly
Deputy Attorney General