Free Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 31.7 kB
Pages: 1
Date: July 17, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 375 Words, 2,282 Characters
Page Size: 619.56 x 799.56 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8746/263-2.pdf

Download Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware ( 31.7 kB)


Preview Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware
Case 1 :04-cv-01394-GMS Document 263-2 Filed 07/17/2006 Page 1 gi 1
age 1 of I
Ballard Stephani (DOJ)
From: Ballard Stephani (DOJ)
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 3:49 PM
To: 'Stephen J. Neuberger'; Durstein Ill Ralph (DOJ); Jim Liguori
Cc: Mitchell Jennifer (DOJ)
Subject: RE: Conley
Counsel,
As you do not specify what "evidence” you are referring to, it is difficult to respond. However, I will refer you to
footnote 1 of our "reply." As that footnote states, Defendant did not initiate briefing on this issue—rather, plaintiff
_ filed an "answering brief' when no opening brief to the defense motion had been tiled. Accordingly, we advised
counsel and the Court as follows:
Defendant‘s initial filing on this issue was by motion (D.I. 239) without briefing. Plaintifi" s response by way of 40-page
"Answcring Briet" (D.I. 256) is arguably improper pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.2. Nonetheless, as Plaintiff s submission has
greatly expanded the scope of argument, a leugthier reply herein is appropriate.
As there was no “opening brief", your contention that certain evidence/argument should have been included in the
opening brief is without merit. Defendant certainly maintains that nothing referenced in the defense Reply Hled on
June 23, 2006 was unknown or new information to the plaintiff or her counsel, and did not fall outside the scope of
subjects addressed in the initial motion and/or the Court’s concerns on the pre-trial publicity issue raised sua
sponte prior to trial.
Stephani
----- Original Message -----
From: Stephen J. Neuberger [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 3:32 PM
To: Durstein III Ralph (DOJ); Ballard Stephani (DOJ); Jim Liguori
Subject: Conley
Counsel,
I have reviewed your sanctions reply brief, ln it, the defense cites to evidence that should have been
included in a full and fair opening brief. It was not. Such an approach violates Local Rule 7.1 .3(c)(2).
Please let me know by tomorrow if you withdraw your reply brief. if not, I will tile a motion to strike.
—Steve
Stephen J. Neuberger, Esq.
The Neuberger Firm
Attorneys and Counsellors at Law
Two East Seventh Street, Suite 302
Wilmington, DE 19801-3707
Phone: 302-655-0582
Fax: 302-655-9329
E-Mail: [email protected]
7/17/2006