Free Notice (Other) - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-00023-JJF Document 160-2 Filed 06/13/2008 Page 1 of 4

Case 1 :05-cv-00023-JJF Document 160-2 Filed 06/13/2008 Page 2 of 4
JENNERZSBLOCK
lime *2· 2008 ii'l“%§$£l2t‘.tt* §’;‘L$‘1i§.t
;J'7tl1 $oIo; NY 100 Wasltington,DC
Z GW O , 22
BY EMAIL at Matt l`Z$Ii$§.$§ZSZ°°
William C. Ferebee Ewa Jegtin 68
ggtgnnell Fglge Medley & Keiser, P.C. Fg, 83269;
` 631'S - {BOI [email protected]
Houston, TX 77067-4512
Re: Dow v. I-IRD Corporation
Dear Bill: ,
I write to advise you as to the status of the demolition ofthe Product Development Plant
("PDP") in Sarnia, Ontario, Canada. As you are well aware, from both Dow’s iilings in this case
and our previous correspondence, Dow is in the process of carrying out its iongpplaimed
dismantling ofthe entire multiplant facility at Sarnia. Dow has thus far delayed the demolition
l of areas, processes, equipment, or controls within the PDP that were used in the manufacture of
wax products for HRD.
In order to avoid the risk of Dew’s incurring substantial costs associated with further
delay (which you have not agreed to provide for), Dow will proceed with the demolition ofthe
Q PDP no later than July 12, 2008. If you intend to raise this issue with the Court, we consent to a
l briefing schedule that will allow the issue to be raised in court on July l 1, 2008. if you do intend
to raise the matter then, please tile your papers within one week from today (by June 19, 2008).
g If Dow does not hear from you by June 19, it will proceed with the demolition immediatel .
2 Y
_ Katya J estin

_ Case 1:05-cv-00023-JJF Document 160-2 Filed 06/13/2008 Page 3 of 4

Case 1 :05-cv-00023-JJF Docu ment 160-2 Filed 06/13/2008 Page 4 of 4
Q O’ [EQ.) N ii E. .i ,
P ii lliéi il ii iii
2 William c. versace ,aars@ aways easy (28 1> 8758200
June I3, 2008
Ms Katya Jestin VEA FAX (212) 8914699
Jenner & Block
= 919 Third Avenue, 371}* Floor
New York, NY 10022
RE: Dow v. HRD Corporation; Our File N0. M31300026.
Dear Ms. Jestin:
I am in receipt of your letter dated June 12, 2008. HRD is OPPOSED to any demolition
ofthe Product Development Plant in Sarnia. HRD’s right of inspection was adversely affected
when Dow elected to conduct demolition activities between December 2007 (when HRD first
asked to inspect the plant) and the aborted April 2008 visit. Any additional demolition would
constitute a complete denial of I·IRD’s right to inspect the plant.
Your letter suggests an accelerated briefing schedule and a hearing on July lt, 2008. To
Q my icnowledge the matter was fully briefed by both parties in April of this year. On May 8,
E 2008, after Ken Naciabar and Hardy Drane contacted the Court regarding a possible hearing date,
the Court issued an order stating that an oral hearing was not necessary and that the Court would
( decide the Motion on the written papers. In light of the May 8, 2008, Order, HRD does not
( believe any additional briefing is necessary or warranted.
( HRD will lodge a copy of your letter and this letter with the Court to apprise it of Dow’s
stated intention to proceed with demolition and HPcD’s response. However, HRD strongly l
believes the parties should maintain the status quo pending a decision from the Court.
Very Truly Yours,
O’DowNsi.L., Fsizaaaa, Maorsv & Kstsaa, P.C.
Warsaw C. Fsaaaas Q
WCF/cm .
cc: Client, viafox
Hardy Drane, vic email
450 Gears - Eighth Floorlllouston, Texas 77067-45 i2iFaX (281) S7S~4962¤Emaii: w£`erebee@ofmidax·eco1n