Free Motion for Protective Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01282-JJF Document 103-3 Filed O3/29/2006 Page 1 of 3
Exhibit 2

Case 1:04-cv-O1282;JJ_F Document 103-3 Filed O3/29[2006 Page 2 of 3
LAW OFFICES
WILLIAMS 8 CONNOLLY LLP
725 TWELFTH STREET, N.W.
C· EDWARD BENNETT WILLIAMS 0920-1988)
PAUL R, CONNOLLY 0922-1978)
<2o2,> 434-5262, (202) 434-5000
[email protected] PAX (202) 4346029
March 24, 2006
Via Email and First Class Mail
James E. Edwards, Jr., Esquire
Ober, Kaler, Grimes & Shriver
120 East Baltimore Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21202-1643
Re: AES Puerto Rico, L.P. v. ALSTOM Power, Inc.
Dear Jim:
We are in receipt of your March 22, 2006 letter regarding scheduling
expert depositions. AES-PR disagrees that ALSTOM is still permitted to take
depositions of AES-PR’s experts. The Court’s Discovery Dispute Resolution Plan,
signed by Judge Farnan on December 16, 2005, D.I. 65, is clear that ALSTOM had
three weeks after the submission of AES-PR’s expert reports to depose AES-PR’s
experts:
The Parties shall make disclosures with regard to expert
witnesses under Rule 26(a)(2) on the following schedule:
(i) Plaintiffs Affirmative Disclosures: February 27, 2006
Within three weeks of submission of the Affirmative
Disclosures, if any, Defendant is entitled to depose each
expert who submitted an Affirmative Disclosure.
(emphasis added).
This schedule also was agreed to by the parties and memorialized in a
joint letter to Judge Farnan, filed by ALSTOM’s counsel on December 15, 2005. D.I.
62 ("Further, the parties have agreed that the deposition of each expert submitting
an Affirmative or Answering Disclosure will occur within three weeks 0f the

Case 1:04-cv-01282-,JJE Document 103-3 Filed O3/29/2006 Page 3 of 3
WILLIAMS 8 CONNOLLY LLP
James E. Edwards, Jr., Esquire
March 24, 2006
Page 2
submission ofthe Disclosure") (emphasis added). According to the Court’s Order,
ALSTOM was required to take the deposition of AES-PR’s experts by March 20,
2006.
AES—PR cannot agree to permit ALSTOM to take depositions beyond
the Court-ordered deadline. The Court’s schedule contemplated a short time
between discovery, dispositive motions, and trial. AES-PR has relied upon the
Court’s Order and the parties’ agreement, and AES-PR would be prejudiced by
ALSTOM’s noncompliance. AES-PR’s experts reserved time on their schedules for
depositions in the three weeks following the submission of their reports. It now
would be extremely difficult to coordinate their schedules. Indeed, two of AES-PR’s
experts are traveling out of the country in the next two weeks.
Moreover, AES-PR’s preparation for trial would be prejudiced by a
change to the Court’s Order. Among other things, over the next two weeks AES—PR
must: (1) decide whether to submit rebuttal expert reports, and if so, have them
written; (2) prepare for the depositions and depose ALSTOM’s experts; (3) respond
in two weeks to ALSTOM’s motion for summary judgment; (4) defend against
ALSTOM’s discovery motion filed in the District Court of Massachusetts; and (5)
respond to yet another apparent discovery motion from ALSTOM, which Mr.
Scialpi’s letter to the Court yesterday suggested would be forthcoming. D.I. 89.
AES-PR should not be prejudiced due to ALSTOM’s dilatory conduct.
As for scheduling our depositions of your experts, I currently am out of
the country and unable to speak today. Please propose dates during the week of
April 3rd that we can depose your experts. We agree with your suggestion that the
depositions should occur at your offices.
Finally, we will make arrangements to have our experts gather their
documents for your inspection and copying as soon as possible. We ask that you
make similar arrangements for your experts to gather all notes, correspondences,
email, memorandum, photographs, and all other documents considered by the
experts.
Sincerely,
Dinan D. u)o.mJ»—r>/
Daniel D. Williams