Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01282-JJF Document 118-8 Filed O4/17/2006 Page 1 of 3
Tab G

A A Case 1:04-cv-012824JJF Document 118-8 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 2 of 3
oBER|KALER
A Professional Corporation
Uber, Kalen Grimes & Shriver James E. Edwards, Jr.
Ami *181/S Gi IGW [email protected]
4l0—347»7330
120 East Baltimore Street Qffiggg |n
BBIIIITTDIE, Maryland
FBX Vi/ashingmni
vVvVW.0b8f.C0lTl Virginia
April 3, 2006
VIA FACSIMILE & FIRST-CLASS MAIL
Daniel D. Williams, Esquire
Williams & Connolly LLP
725 Twelfth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
Re: AES Puerto Rico, L.P. v. ALSTOM Power Inc.
Dear Dan:
Last week, your ofnce sent two packages of subpoenas to my attention. The first
package of subpoenas, purportedly issued by the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware, apparently sought the production of documents by individuals
retained or specially employed by ALSTOM to provide expert testimony in this case.
The second package, again purportedly issued by the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware, requested the appearance of these same individuals in this
Firm’s offices for depositions.
ln both instances, the attempted form of service of the subpoenas is improper
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Furthermore, under Rule 45(a)(2),
subpoenas issued by the Court in Delaware are ineffective in securing the production
of documents in Maryland or the appearance of witnesses in Maryland. Accordingly,
such subpoenas are a nullity and require no further response.
Notwithstanding that AES’ subpoenas are a nullity, ALSTOM agreed to make- _
expert witnesses available for depositions on certain dates and, pursuant to AES’
Notices of Deposition, those expert witnesses will appear at the time and place
indicated in the Notices. We have arranged to make a conference room available in
our offices for each of these depositions.
Based on AES' failure to make complete production in discovery, ALSTOM has
filed discovery motions with the Court. ALSTOM reserves the right to supplement its
Expert Witness Disclosures should AES produce additional documents or electronic
data in response to ALSTOM’s motions or othenrvise. Should AES go fonrvard with
these depositions as scheduled prior to the supplementation of ALSTOM’s Expert
Witness Disclosures, ALSTOM will not voluntarily reconvene these depositions.

Case 1:04-cv-01282-JJF Document 118-8 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 3 of 3
oBER|KALER
Daniel D. Williams, Esquire
April 3, 2006
Page 2
Finally, ALSTOM has given notice of its intention to take the depositions of six
individuals identified by AES in its Expert Witness Disclosure pursuant to Federal Rule
26(a)(2). ln the Notices, ALSTOM indicated a willingness to attempt to reach an
agreement regarding the dates and locale for the depositions and, in an
accompanying cover letter, requested confirmation that the witnesses would appear.
To date, ALSTOM has not received a response to that communication. Instead, AES
filed a Motion for Protective Order with regard to those depositions to which ALSTOM
is responding today. Unless we receive written instructions to the contrary by the
close of business on April 3, 2006, ALSTOM will assume that AES’ witnesses will not
appear for the depositions.
lf you have any questions, please call · ;
*$`
_ cerel ` -
l, ( I
F l .A&;
am s E. Edwa •, r.
JEEJr/bak