Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00910-GIVIS Document 137 Filed 03/14/2006 Page 1 of 2
C@i% §@ist..,Y BQVE i.G§@§ & §~lti°`?Z teh.?
. . .... . ..... .. ....., .... .. . .... ....
L RO. Box 2207 bu Ul -
\.=Vilrn:ngton DE 19899
com sas anti
Collins J. Seitz, Jr. GG?} 558 gett-
TF-L (302) eee-ezrs .. . , ..,, . .
FAX (302} 255*4278 [ i E`. `_44 1 _,`,`_: C in °
EN!AiL [email protected] _ff`;_f E_i ft, `‘‘` _
manu rowarmsagtoa once Lil l??:-$iQ?i`?$ »- E Ii.
Mach ia, 2006 _‘=_ T __:;;`` E it i1‘ i··;Q ‘.i_ .1`·E. ; iai
isi rr www.cbin.i;om
Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
844 N. King Street - Room 4324
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: Integrated Health Services v. THCl Company LLC
Civil Action No. 04—91 0 (GMS)
Dear Judge Sleet:
This firm, together with Pitney Hardin LLP, represents THC} Company
LLC ("THCi") in this action and the related appeal pending before Your Honor under
Civil Action No. 03-6l0. l am writing in response to the letter from p1aintift`s’ counsel,
Amos Alter, dated March 13, 2006 and to request guidance as to whether to respond to
the motion to quash certain subpoenas because counsel has indeed been "unmindfu1" of
Your Honor’s procedures.
During a conference on February 28, 2006, Your Honor heard argument
on whether discovery should proceed and whether Mr. Alter was permitted to file an
"omnibus" motion including discovery issues. I attach a copy ofthe transcript from that
conference (Exhibit A) for the Court’s convenience. Your Honor rejected Mr. Alter’s
request for a stay and for leave to file an omnibus motion and ordered discovery to move
forward. Your Honor advised Mr. Alter that the Court does not permit motions practice
on discovery issues, explaining that "you don’t have free leave to file motions seeking
protection or compulsion of discovery? (Transcript at 15-16). After considering
additional argument, the Court reiterated that “you are not given leave to freely file so
called omnibus motions, Mr. Alter." (Transcript at 20). Consistent with the Cou1t’s
instructions and local practice, my co—counsel, Mr. Sager spoke to and sent a letter to l\/lr.
Alter and expressed Tl—ICi’s willingness to consider a reasonable compromise on Mr.
A1ter’s discovery concerns to avoid burdening the Court with discovery disputes. A copy

Case 1 :04-ov-00910-GIVIS Document 137 Filed 03/14/2006 Page 2 of 2
Honorable Gregory M. Sleet
Page 2
March 14, 2006
oi` Mr. Sag,er’s letter is attached as Exhibit B. Mr. Alter refused any compromise and
tiled his motion to quash.
Given that Mr. Alter has ignored Your Honor’s instructions, l write to
inquire whether THCi should respond to that portion of plaintiffs motion seeking to
quash the subpoenas or whether THCI may proceed with discovery consistent with the
Court’s prior ruling.
Respectfully,
, fi ei/`E
i iii lie "*~—-in
E`“g;?§`N Qi ai J Xi
Collins J. Seitz, Jr.
(Bar No. 22.37)
CJ S,Jr./saj
Enclosures
cc: David S. Sager, Esquire (w/enc.) (by entail)
Michael R. Lastowski, Esquire (w/enc.) (by email)
Amos Alter, Esquire (w/enc.) (by email)
Clerk, U.S. District Court
{452717)