Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01264-SLR Document 300 Filed 11/16/2005 Page 1 of 2
ASHBY & GEDDES
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW TELEPHONE
302-654-IBB!
222 DELAWARE AVENUE
P. O. BOX ||5O 3026::T-::67
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899
November 16, 2005
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
United States District Court
844 North Kind Street,
Wilmington, DE 19801
RE: BTG International Inc. v. Amaz0n.c0m, Inc.
C.A. No. 04-1264-SLR
Dear Chief Judge Robinson:
Yesterday, at the Court’s direction, the parties to the above action submitted letter briefs
concerning privilege issues that were raised by defendants during the November 2, 2005
discovery status conference in the above action. As to the first issue—whether communications
between non-lawyers undertaken at an attomey’s instruction are privileged——the Court instructed
the parties to provide "a one-page letter, one or two cases Hom each party that would persuade
me that the privilege is extended that way or not." (ll/2 Transcript at 24) As to the second
issue-—whether certain commrmications with third—party consultants are privileged——the Court
again instructed the parties to "give me the best case or two. I don’t want a long explanation
because I can read cases." (11/2 Transcript at 30) As to the third issue——whether the privilege
was waived as to certain documents stored at a sublet facility——the Court directed the parties to
further develop the facts: "If` you are prepared to offer your version of the facts to me on those
issues [on November 15th], that’s fme. If there needs to be a different mechanism than this letter
memorandum you’re going to send me, then you should contact my office so we can have a
telephone conference and determine how we’re going to address the issue." (1 l/2 Transcript at
35)
Plaintiffs complied with the Court’s instructions by: (1) briefly summarizing the first two
issues and submitting their "best case or two" on each issue without further discussion; and (2)
informing first the defendants, and then the Court, that plaintiffs needed an additional week to
finish gathering the facts relevant to the third issue. Defendants, however, substantially ignored
the Courts instructions by submitting a six-page, single-spaced letter that cited and discussed
more than a dozen cases, and—despite having been advised by plaintif`f`s’ counsel on Monday
November 14, 2005 that plaintiffs were not yet in a position to address the "stored documents"
issue——attached over thirty pages of exhibits addressing that topic.
Although we are reluctant to burden the Court with another issue in this matter, this is not
the first time that defendants have knowingly ignored the Court’s instructions at BTG’s

Case 1 :04-cv-01264-SLR Document 300 Filed 11/16/2005 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
November l6, 2005
Page 2
expense] and we fear it will not be the last unless the Court requires defendants to abide by its
directives. Accordingly, plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court strike defendants’ letter, or
in the alternative, allow plaintiffs to submit a detailed response.
Respectfully,
/s/ John G. Day
John G. Day (I.D. #2403)
J GD: nml
Attachment
163614.1
cc: Clerk of the Court (by hand)
John W. Shaw, Esquire (by hand)
Karen L. Pascale, Esquire (by hand)
Niall A. MacLeod, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Michael A. Collyard, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Kristin L. Cleveland, Esquire (via electronic mail)
John F. Luman, IH, Jr., Esquire (via electronic mail)
l See Tab 1 (email to the Court from Steven J. Balick, Esquire, responding to defendants’ decision to ignore the
Cou1t’s directive forbidding attachments to email submissions).