Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv—00943-KAJ Document 44 Filed 08/1 1/2005 Page 1 of 2
Potter
N Anderson
i`“COI·]·OOH [11) Sarah E. DiLuzi0
Attorney at Law
[email protected]
1;s1:—: Noah l\1arke1 sm-.»¤ 302 984-6279 Difw Ph¤¤¢
my BOX gg;] 302 658-1192 Fax
\VIlHlLI.Il{;"ll)Il, DE 19899-0951
::0; @8+ strut
wu w.|11»tt<·run1le1·s1m.1·om August 1 1,
By E-FILE and HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: Dino G. Petrocelli v. Chrysler Corporation, Mopar Division,
Case No. 04-CV-943-KAJ
Dear Judge Jordan:
Pursuant to the Cou1t’s Scheduling Order dated March 31, 2005, DaimlerChrysler
Corporation provides this interim status report regarding the nature of the matters at issue in the
above-captioned case and the progress of discovery to date.
This case centers around an employment dispute between Mr. Petrocelli and
DaimlerChrysler. Mr. Petrocelli’s claims arise from his former employment with
DaimlerChrysler. He claims that he was discriminated against and harassed based on his
national origin (Hispanic). DaimlerChrysler denies Mr. Petrocelli’s allegations.
In terms of discovery, the parties have exchanged their Rule 26 disclosures, and
DaimlerChrysler produced to Mr. Petrocelli the documents identified in its Rule 26 disclosures
on May 3, 2005. DaimlerChrsyler only recently took Mr. Petrocelli’s deposition on August 8th
and 9th. This is despite DaimlerChrysler’s repeated attempts over the last four and a half months
to schedule and take Mr. Petrocelli’s deposition. DaimlerChrysler has noticed it three times,
only to have it canceled at the last minute by Mr. Petrocelli twice due to his work schedule. To
accommodate his work schedule and to get the deposition taken, DaimlerChrysler agreed to take
Mr. Petrocelli’s deposition during the evening hours over a two-day period. The deposition took
place just three days ago.
During the second day of his deposition, Mr. Petrocelli produced some
documents, but it is unclear whether the documents he produced are in response to
DaimlerChrysler’s subpoena duces tecum, tirst mailed to Mr. Petrocelli on April 20, 2005, or if
they are the documents identified in his Rule 26 disclosures, or if they are both. In any event,
Mr. Petrocelli indicated during his deposition that there are documents responsive to the
subpoena duces tecum that he has not yet produced. He stated that he is still trying to get those

Case 1 :04-cv—00943-KAJ Document 44 Filed 08/11/2005 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
August ll, 2005
Page 2
documents and that he will produce them as soon as he gets them. He gave no indication when
that might be.
In sum, DaimlerChrysler has only very recently taken Mr. Petrocelli’s deposition
and received documents from him. Both occurred three days ago. To date, Mr. Petrocelli has
not undertaken any discovery, despite sending his Rule 26 disclosures, nor has he requested any
depositions.
Due to the slow progress of discovery caused by Mr. Petrocelli’s failure and
refusal to make himself available for his deposition and produce documents until very recently,
counsel for DaimlerChrysler believes that an extension of the current deadlines in the case may
be required.
Counsel look forward to discussing these matters at the telephonic Status
Conference scheduled for August 23, 2005 at 11:30 a.m.
Respectfully,
tm//·;
· Sarah E. DiLuzio
cc: Dino Petrocelli (by mail)
Kristen Page, Esquire (by email)
694520