Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 36.3 kB
Pages: 1
Date: November 2, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 336 Words, 2,110 Characters
Page Size: 609.882 x 790.531 pts
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/7490/124.pdf

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 36.3 kB)


Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1 :04-cv-00138-JJF Document 124 Filed 1 1/O2/2005 Page 1 of 1
YOUNO C ONAWAY Sranonrr & TAYLOR, LLP
Tae Bsawovwmn Bottoms
1000 west smear, wm rrooa
Josv W. INGERSOLL (No. 1088) w;,;M;Nm-GN, DELAWARE lggm (302) 571-6600
Drascr Dist: 302671-6672 (302) 571-1253 FAX
Dnaacr sax: 302-576-3301 p,g_ 30;,; 391 (800) 253-2234 (DE ONLY)
)[email protected] Wiiemncoron, DELAWARE 19899-039E ‘·“’m'-Y9lm£°°9B‘VBY-99m
November 2, 2005
BY E-FILING
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
United States District Court
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 1980l
Re: GTECH Corporation v. Scientific Games International, Inc., et al.
Civil Action No. O4-138-JJF
Dear Judge Farnan:
We write on behalf of GTECH in response to the letter hom counsel for Scientific
Gaines submitted eniier today concerning G”i`ECI·I’s pending motion for reconsideration [13.1.
101} of the Court’s July iiih Order [D.I. 96} regarding production by GTECH of opinions of
counsel. In that letter, counsel for Scientific Games stated that GTECH “deciined to produce the
opinions, because ‘tl1e Order did not specify a time frame within which production of the . . .
opinions must be made. "’ In actuality, the reason that GTECH has not produced the opinions is
that GTECH’s pending motion for reconsideration is based on a claim of attorney client
privilege. The motion for reconsideration would be rendered moot if GTECH were forced to
produce those opinions prior to a decision on its pending rnotion for reconsideration. For this
reason, GTECI-I requested on page 1 of its motion for reconsideration that the production order
be stayed pending resolution ofthe motion for reconsideration. (D.I. 101 at 1 and fn. 1).
We thank the Court for the opportunity to clarify this issue.
Respectfully submitted,
Josy W. Ingersoll (No. 1088)
JWI:cg
cc: Clerk of the Court (by electronic tiling and hand delivery)
Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esquire (by electronic tiling and hand delivery)
osolzissssssi 0ss0ss.t00i

Case 1:04-cv-00138-JJF

Document 124

Filed 11/02/2005

Page 1 of 1