Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 36.2 kB
Pages: 1
Date: October 12, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 345 Words, 2,243 Characters
Page Size: 622.08 x 792 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8610/127.pdf

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 36.2 kB)


Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR Document 127 Filed 10/12/2005 Page 1 of 1
SKADDEN, AHPS. SLATE, MEAGHER 5} FLOM |.|.F’
ONE R0I:>NEY SOUARE I
R0. Box 636 ,,0;,,,,
wII.rvIIr~IeT0IxI. DELAWARE Ieeee-oe;-ze §’§L°§Z°§’§L
— LOS ANGELES
rEI.; (noe) ee I-sooo N°;§NWjC'fFfK
mor DIAL FAX: (sos) 65 I-zoo I »=At¤ me
(302;,,5;,jQ 54 www.S1 race: ee I -3OOI B,§,,G
M BA Eiiii) D E N . CO M &PRRAUNSKiiJLR5T
HONG KONG
October 12, 2005 ;§;§§Q‘,
5.~'Z."£$£$RE
TOKYO
BY ELECTRONIC FILING ”§iiE?.TJl°
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
RE: McKesson Information Solutions, LLC v. The T riZetto Group, Inc.,
C.A. No. 04-1258-SLR
Dear Chief Judge Robinson:
We write to correct certain misstatements in TI‘iZetto’s October 7, 2005
letter regarding McKesson’s request for relief in connection with certain of its Rule
30(b)(6) topics objected to by TriZetto. (D.I. 118). TriZetto has not in fact produced all of
the documents from which McKesson can obtain the customer information requested in
our October 4 letter. (D.I. 1l2). TriZetto answered McKesson's interrogatory directed at
this information by referencing documents in it production. TriZetto's production,
however, contained documents for fewer than half of its customers. When we requested
the relevant documents for the remaining customers, TriZetto stated that they did not exist.
As a result, Mcliesson was forced to seek this information through a Rule 30(b)(6)
deposition, only to have TriZetto refuse to produce a witness able to provide the .
information missing from TriZetto's production and interrogatory response. Under these
circumstances, McKesson's request for a complete answer to its interrogatory, as requested
in our October 4 letter, in lieu of a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition is appropriate. See, e. g.,
United States v. Moss. Indust. Fin. Agency, 162 F.R.D. 410, 412 (D. Mass. 1995).
Respectfully submitted,
Michael A. Barlow (#3928)
cc: Jeffrey T. Thomas, Esq. (by e—mail)
Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esq. (by e-filing)