Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—O1278-KAJ Document 233-2 Filed 11/O3/2005 Page1 0f3

Case 1 :04-cv-01278-KAJ Document 233-2 Filed 1 1/O3/2005 Page 2 of 3
111111 ; 11_1__1_`M_ _ 4__________________,,_ 11__A“,_4M,1__________,__,,3333 33,3 3 3_3,_,31_3___3`13u_4__1____ 3 _________ _ ____________ 3, ____3 . _,,V,3 33 3333 3 3333333.33 3 333333 3 .3...3._33.__3.....3..3...... -.- 3,..3..3333 .3 .333 ;, 3
August 1 1, 5 I Jenner 3: illock LL? Chicago
One mm Plaza Dallas
Chicago. IL 6o51x·75og Washington, oc
TEX 512 292-9550
VIA F ACSIEVIILE AND U.S. MAIL »w.·w;amm~.eam
John W_ Shaw, Esq Donald R. Cassiing
_ Young Conavvy Stargatt & Taylor, LLP ;;*;“;?5; _
The B1‘3,t1Cly'Wl.1'1€ Blllldillg d=:[email protected]
l000 West Street, l7th Floor
Wilmington, DE l980l
Re: Cryovac, Inc. v. ichiney Plastic Packaging, Inc., C.A. 04-1278-KA.}
Bear John: ·
I ani responding to your letter objecting to the production of Stuart Prosser in accordance with
Peci1iney’s Notice of Deposition.
(jryovads objections to the production of Mr. Prosser are unfounded. To begin, “[i}t is well
recognized that the federal rules allow broad and liberal discovery? Pociiti v. Macyis, l93 F.3d
766, 77'?—78 (3d Cir. 1999); Corning Inc. v. SRU Biosystems, LLC] 223 F.R.D. l9l, 193 (D. Del.
2004). "Releva.nt information need not be admissible at the trial if the discovery appears
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence? Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)( 1);
Corning Inc., 223 F.R.D. at 193. Moreover, "discovery requests may be deemed relevant if there
is any possibility that the information may be relevant to the general subject matter ofthe
litigation? Caruso v. Coleman Co., i5'? l*`.R.D. 344, 347 (E.D. Pa. 1994).
The infomation Pecbiney seeks through the deposition of Mr. Prosser clearly fits within the
broad discovery provided for by the Federal Rules and allowed in the Third Circuit. Without
limitation, but solely by way of example, Pechiney will seek to obtain the following relevant
3 bfvtmatiss Muah. its —==#<¤mi¤3ei¤¤ ef on-»¤¢r= 3 3 3 3 3 33 33 33 33 33333 3 3 3 33.33 3 3 3333 3 3 3
1. Infomation relevant to Pechiney’s defense of competitive privilege to Cryovacfs
tortious interference claims. Mr. Prosser, for example, is the author of a memorandum relevant
to determining the scope and boundaries of the competitive privilege as it relates to this case.
(See CR0l4~t}O0703-04.)
2, Infomation relevant to Cryovac’s efforts to mitigate damages. Mr. Prosscr’s
memorandum, mentioned above, is relevant to this issue as well.
33 information relevant to whether Cryovac’s tortious interference claim was
brought in good faith. Mr. Prosser’s memorandum, mentioned above, is also relevant to this
issue.
cnicAoo_:2s¤oss_i

Case 1:04-cv—O1278-KAJ Document 233-2 Filed 11/O3/2005 Page 3 of 3
3______u______ . _______,,_____ 3___ eeeeee Jnhn..W...S11a.w .._A...._.e..,3 .. 33333 . 3333333,``333.3e .. 3`43,.3`A`..4~., .<.`. . e._..... ..............................`....m........n”.»,.3 ,_33 3333333e3333eeieeeee . 33.33.43~e3ee< ns. ........ ................. ..... . ......... ..... . ..... . ....... ....... ..
.. an . .. . .. .. .. .... . . . . . . . .
....... . ....... .. Page .... .. ...... ..... . .. . .. ......... . ........... .. ....... ....... .. ........ . ... . ........... .. ..... ...... ..... . .... .
Not only does Peciiiney’s Notice seek relevant infonnation, but it is tirneiy. The Notice was
served on August 8, 2005, prior to the discovery cut off ofzkugust 19. Furthermore, deposing -.
Mr. Prosser is neither unduly burdensome nor harassing. As discussed above, Mr. Prosser is the
author of at least one memorandum relevant to crucial issues in this litigation. Moreover,
. ..... . ..... .. . . . REDACTE1) . ... . -. . pp
_ H _ (See Gardner Dep. Trns. ppg. 186, hr. E4 ~ 204, in. l.) Finally,.
the fact that Mr. Prosser is ont ofthe country is not a valid objection to production because Mr.
Prosser is an officer of a party to the lawsuit. While we are not required to do so, we are willing
to discuss alternatives to having Mr. Prosser come to Washington for his deposition, such as
having the attorneys go to London to depose him there.
if you still refuse to produce Mr. Prosser for his deposition, please let me know as soon as
possible, so that we may seek appropriate relief from the Court.
Very truly yours,
Donald R. Cassling
DRC
- CEiECAGO__l296355__l