Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01266-SLR Document 93 Filed O3/11/2005 Paget of 2
Ricuaiaoe, LA~rr0N & F‘1Ncas:i=2
A PRDFEESIONAL ASSOCUNTEON
ONE Rooney Savant:
920 N¤i=z·n—r Kino Srneet
C.MA:..c¤t.M Cocr-man. IV W,LM,NGTONY DELAWARE IQBOI Dinaczv Dm;. Nuwieen
Dmacron 302·S5 1 -7506
‘3“’2’ 65 """°° c¤¤naAN@»=a¤= can
F-`Ax(302)65t-7701
www.Hi.F.COM
March ll, 2005
VLA E-FILE AND HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Sue L Robinson
US. District Court for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street ~ Room 4209
Lock Box 18
Wilmington, DE l980l
Re: Teleglobe Communications Corporation, et nl. v.
BCE, Inc., et al.; Civil Action No. 04—CV~1266
Dear Chief Judge Robinson.
The purpose of this letter is to respond to the letter sent to Chambers by Ms Morgan
. dated March 3, 2005. Although we are aware that the Court does not typically receive letter
correspondence, at oral argument of defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court invited us to
address, if helpful, certain recent decisions of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
The problem illustrated by Ms Morgarfs letter is that the decisions referred to in that
letter are entirely unhelpful to the task before the Court. First the cases discussed in Ms.
Morgan’s letter all arise in the summary judgment context. Of course, this case is before the
Court on a motion to dismiss. Moreover, the cases do no more than generally reaffirm the "plain
meaning" doctrine of contract interpretation, i e, where words are used in a contract and are
unambiguous, the Court is to afford the words their plain meaning and not rety on evidence
extrinsic to the contract to interpret those words Here, however, the Court is not being called
upon to irrterpret a contract, but instead, in the context of this motion to dismiss, to determine
whether the Complaint adequately alleges that a contract was formed. Thus, cases dealing with
contract izrteipretczrion, while interesting, are of no help given what the Court is asked to rule on
in the context of this motion.
We therefore respectfully submit that Ms. Morgan’s letter does not address any issue
before the Court on the current motion. We also represent to the Court that, after searching, we
are not aware of any new Third Circuit precedent relating to issues currently before the Court,
such as the extent to which the Court may look outside the "four corners" of the Complaint in
deciding this motion to dismiss. Accordingly, we respectfully submit that the Court should
nerr-2s4s4sa-z

Case 1:04-cv-01266-SLR Document 93 Filed 03/11/2005 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Sue L Robinson
March ll, 2005
Page 2
proceed to decide the motion on the basis of the authorities previously briefed and argued Of
course, should we become aware of any Third Circuit authorities bearing on the issues presented
inthe briefs, we will bring them to the Court’s attention promptly.
Respectfully,
C Malcolm Cochran, IV (#2377)
CMC;ps
cc. Clerk ofthe Court (via e—file and hand delivery)
Gregory V. Varallo, Esq.
Pauline K. Morgan, Esq (via hand delivery)
Kevin Gross, Esq. (via hand delivery)
Stuart Baskin, Esq. (via facsimile),
John P. Amato, Esq (via facsimile)
1u.`r1-zs4s4ss-1