Free Appendix - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 90.7 kB
Pages: 2
Date: September 21, 2006
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 407 Words, 2,507 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8652/76-18.pdf

Download Appendix - District Court of Delaware ( 90.7 kB)


Preview Appendix - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:0.4-cv-013.00-SLR Document 76-18 Filed O9/21/2006 . Page 1 012 ,
EXHIBIT J
A210

. . . Case 1 :04-cv-O1300 WASHINGTON I NEW YORK I LONDON li '
BA September 18, 2006
Hu H N VIA E-MAIL & FIRST cLAss MAIL ‘
Craig E. Stewart, Esq.
P LLC Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge LLP _
l ll Huntington Avenue ‘ *
Prudential Center ,r_r
Dwrcr-rr P. Bosrwrcx BOSIOH, M&SS&ChUSCTlS
dw1ght.bostwick@baachr0bins¤n.com
Re: Ethygharm v. Bentley, 04—1300 ISLRI ;
Dear Craig: - IQ
The attached letter dated Friday, September 15, 2006, was sent to our ‘-`-· A
law firm marked for Saturday delivery. As you intended, this letter was ,
delivered to us on Saturday, September 16, 2006 and was received today —
the first business day after the due date for Ethypharm’s Opposition to
Bentley’s Motion for Summary Judgment on the issue of agency. To our
great surprise, yoLu· letter enclosed additional relevant documents responsive
to Phase 1 discovery on the issues of agency and joint tortfeasor status. As
you know, Bentley was required to produce these documents many months
ago. In addition, you chose not to provide us with notice of the existence of
these documents before Ethypharm filed its Opposition to Summary
Judgment despite the fact that the attorneys with our respective law firms _
were in contact a number of times last week, including discussions that took
place on Friday. .
Bentley’s production of agency related documents after the filing of
Ethyphann’s Opposition to Summary Judgment is unconscionable. This is
especially true in light of the prejudice that Ethypharm has already suffered
given Bentley’s production of other highly relevant documents relating to é
agency after the close of Phase l discovery and in light of what we consider
to be false statements and omissions of material fact that have been Q¤
previously filed with the Court as part of sworn declarations of Bentley ‘
officials. In light of the seriousness of this matter, I ask that you immediately
provide an explanation for the timing of this production and I alert you to the
fact that we are actively considering the most appropriate manner in which to
_ inform the Court of this matter.
sia - . , ` `
. ,4 “ 3`l. <=· ` .3]:
Dwi; ' stwick
Enclosure I _.
I l20l FStrcet, NW I Suite 500 I Washington, DC 20004 I ZO2.6$9.6744 I ZOZ.466.$738 fax
I I A21 1 I