Free Order on Motion to Stay - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01266-SLR Document 290 Filed 06/07/2006 Page1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re: )
) Chapter II
TELEGLOBE COMMUNICATIONS )
CORPORATION, et al., ) Bankr. Case N0. 02-11518-MFW
Debtcrs. )
TELEGLOBE COMMUNICATIONS )
CORPORATION, et al., )
Plaintiffs, )
v. ) Civ. N0. 04-1266-SLR
BCE INC., et al., )
Defendants. )
O R D E R
At Wilmingtcn this Tm day 0f June, 2006, having reviewed
defendants' m0ti0n t0 stay pending appeal, and having heard
c0unsel 0n same;
IT IS ORDERED that said m0ti0n (D.I. 284) is granted, f0r
the reas0ns that f0ll0w:
I. In evaluating a m0ti0n f0r stay pending appeal, the
United States Ccurt 0f Appeals f0r the Third Circuit has directed
that f0ur fact0rs be c0nsidered; “(I) whether the mcving party
is likely t0 succeed 0n appeal; (2) whether the m0ving party will
suffer irreparable injury absent relief; (3) whether granting

Case 1:04-cv-01266-SLR Document 290 Filed 06/07/2006 Page 2 of 3
relief will cause harm to other interested parties; and (4)
whether granting or denying the motion would best serve the
public interest.” South Camden Citizens in Action v. New Jersey
Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 2001 WL 34131402, at *1 (3d Cir. June 15,
2001).
2. Defendants contend that I erred when I agreed with the
Special Master in extending the joint client privilege to include
plaintiffs (subsidiaries of Teleglobe, now in bankruptcy) and in
including, under the joint client privilege umbrella, documents
that were channeled through in—house counsel who had as joint
clients both BCE and Teleglobe. The issues raised by the appeal
are significant and have not been specifically addressed by the
Third Circuit. It is not clear how the Third Circuit will rule,
especially in light of the record (to wit, defendants' failure to
clearly terminate the representation by its in—house counsel of
Teleglobe and its over-designation of hundreds of documents as
privileged in the first instance).
3. In balancing the harms, I conclude that a stay is
warranted. Disclosure and use of the documents in dispute will
have an impact on the parties' respective pretrial preparations
(including some additional follow—up discovery) and trial
strategies. It would be wasteful of judicial and other resources
to try the case twice, either by trying to extract the privileged
materials or by trying to include them on a post hoc basis.
2

Case 1:04-cv-01266-SLR Document 290 Filed 06/07/2006 Page 3 of 3
Although I am concerned about the delay involved and expect
defendants to request expedited treatment from the Third
Circuit,1 a stay of the currently scheduled trial is warranted,
taking all of the above factors into consideration.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a telephonic status conference
with the court will be conducted on Tuesday, September 12, 2006
at 8:30 a.m., with defendants’ counsel initiating the call.
II will not rule out the imposition of sanctions if
defendants neither prevail on the merits nor do all they can to
expedite the resolution of their appeal so trial in this
litigation can go forward efficiently and timely.
3