Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01282-JJF Document 118-10 Filed O4/17/2006 Page 1 0f 3
Tab I

Case 1:04-cv-01282-JJF Document 118-10 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 2 of 3
oBER|KALER
A Professional Corporation
Obcr, Kaler, Grimes & Shriver James E. Edwards, Jr.
ATTOIITBVS at Law [email protected]
itu-247-me
120 East Baltimore Street (mines |n
Baltimore, MD 21202-1643 Maiyiand
410-685-11ZU/ Fax 410-547-U699 Washington, DC.
vtNv\N.0b8r.C0m Virginia
April 5, 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:
This is in response to your letter to me dated April 3, 2006 regarding
subpoenas that your office attempted to issue out of the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware and deliver to me in an effort to compel the production of
documents and the appearance of expert witnesses for depositions.
As indicated in my letter to you dated April 3, 2006, all of the subpoenas are
defective. Moreover, there is no outstanding discovery request from AES pursuant to
which ALSTOM is obligated to produce documents produced by or relied upon by its
expert witnesses. Conversely, ALSTOM’s Request No. 76 in its First Request for
Production of Documents to AES specifically required AES to produce a range of
documents provided to and produced by experts engaged by AES. Nevertheless,
despite your indication that AES would do so, AES has failed to produce those
documents.
As set forth in my letter to you on April 3, ALSTOM will make its expert
witnesses available for deposition in these offices on the dates identified in AES’
Notices of Deposition. ALSTOM will not, however, provide the documents that AES
has attempted to obtain without the benefit of a discovery request or a proper
subpoena.
Although not cited in my letter to you on April 3, there are other reasons why
AES is not entitled to the production of documents relied upon or produced by
ALSTOM’s expert witnesses. Among other things, the Court’s Rule 16 Scheduling
Order provides that the parties are to serve discovery requests on one another such »
that discovery would be completed by March 10, 2006. Nevertheless, AES failed to
serve a discovery request on ALSTOM requesting the production of documents

Case 1:04-cv-01282-JJF Document 118-10 Filed 04/17/2006 Page 3 of 3
o R is R |1< A L 12 R 2
Daniel D. Williams, Esquire
April 5, 2006
Page 2
produced by or relied upon by ALSTOM’s expert witnesses. Therefore, in addition to
the other deficiencies, the subpoenas that your office delivered to me are untimely.
Moreover, in order to utilize a subpoena to compel the production of
documents, it must be served upon the custodian of those documents and must allow
a reasonable period of time for compliance. ln this case, neither of those
requirements have been satisfied.
The subpoenas that your office belatedly attempted to issue are a nullity.
Furthermore, apait from the depositions that have been scheduled, ALSTOM will
object to any attempt to obtain further discovery of its expert witnesses.
lf you have any questionsixlease •; ··
Sincere `
R., , 1%
\_j
James Edward
JEEJr/bak
r_vLv"·~\`-\`“_"`—vm‘!L)//J};