Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv-00479-SLFl—LPS Document 20 Filed 05/30/2008 Page 1 of 2
Potter
N Anderson
lh COITOOH LLP sms it. ninuno .
Attorney at Law I
at-new Meme §%‘l“€f2“§l‘l°’El?§§5§t§§§“ P
PD.l?>lcx95l 302 658-1192 Fax
Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
302 esa 6000
WWW.{§3{BliCYH.¥lli¥0I‘SE)l}.00I'¥l May 30,
Via Electronic Filing
The Honorable Leonard P. Stark `
5 · United States District Court ‘ ·
844 King Street
Lock Box 26 .
Wilmington, DE l980l
Re: Subh v. Wal——Mart Stores East LP, C.A. No. 07-479 ~ SLR—LPS
Dear Judge Stark:
I write on behalf of the Defendant in this action, Wal~i\/[art Stores East, LP. ("Wa1-
l\/Iart”), in response to the plaintiff s request for appointment of counsel. Although Wal-Mart has
no objection ifthe Court determines that it is appropriate to appoint counsel to represent the
plaintiff, it does strongly object to any further delay in this case.
Plaintiff] acting pm se, filed this action on August 2, 2007. (DI. 1) Plaintiff then agreed
to the Scheduling Order proposed by the Court, which called for discovery to be completed by
June 7, 2008. (D.l. 8) Wal·l\/iart served Plaintiff with interrogatories, document requests,
requests for admission, and noticed his deposition. (Di. l2, 13, l4) Plaintiff failed to timely
respond to the written discovery and requested a postponement of his deposition. Then,
approximately one month before the conclusion of the discovery period, but after the time within
which Plaintiff himself could have initiated any discovery, Plaintiff wrote to the Court requesting
that the discovery period be extended. (D.l. l5, 16) Before Wal—l\/[art had the opportunity to
obj ect to Plaintiff s request, the Court entered an order amending the scheduling order and
extending the deadline for discovery until August 7, 2008. (D.}, l8) Throughout this ten·rnonth
period, Plaintiff was acting pro se.
lf Plaintiff believed that he was entitled to have counsel appointed, as his May 29, 2008
letter indicates, he could have made that request months ago. Plaintiff s latest request is but
another example of his failure to diligently prosecute this action. He should not be rewarded
with yet more extensions of time. Moreover, Wal-Mart should not be prejudiced by Plaintiff s
caprice. As time passes, witnesses’ memories fade and, given the nature of the retail business in
which Wal-Mart operates, employee witnesses may leave Wal-Matt without having had their
testimony recorded. Regardless of whether Plaintiff s request for counsel is granted, Wal—Mart
is entitled to have this matter move forward on the current schedule so that it may move this case
to resolution.

Case 1 :07-cv-00479-SLFl—LPS Document 20 Filed 05/30/2008 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Leonard P. Stark
May 30, 2008
Page 2
Counsel for Wal-Mart is available at the Court’s convenience if Your Honor has any
questions.
Respectfully,
Wgarah E. DiLuzio
(DE Bar I.D. No. 4085)
ec: Majed Subh (via U.S. mail) _
Clerk of the Court (Electronic tiling via CM/ECF)
866961/32152