Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cv-00300-JJF Document 82 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 1 of 3 ·
· _ g I. . I Robert K. Beste, Jr.,
- I _ —_ . Attorney At Law _
- . iii 1***+ .
_ COHEN SEGLIAS PALLAS Nemours Building, Suite 1130
. - ` 1007 Orange Street
H i . · Wilmington, DE 19801
I _ _ _ . I `lt 302.425.5089 I F: 302.425.5097
_ I _ ‘ ` . - [email protected]
. I I . I WVVW.COl"i€l'\S€gll3S,COfT\
_ - I , May 4, 2006 ._ · I
BY ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. - .
U. S; District Court - District of Delaware . `
844 N. King Street, Room 4209 ‘
Lockbox 18 _ F I ` .
‘ Wilmington, DE 19801 I ,
RE: Creedon Controls, Inc. v. Banc One Building Corporation, and
- Forest Electric Corporation; DistrictiCourt Case No. 05CV300 (J,} E)
Dear Judge Faman: .
This office represents Plaintiff, Creedon‘Controls, Inc. ("CCI"), in the above—referenced
I litigation. - _ .
A Motion for Protective Order was filed by DefendantIIBanc One Building.Corporation
("BOBC"), on January 9, 2006 (D.E. 38), and joined by Forest Electric Corporation ("Forest")
(D.E. 39). That Motion was filed on the eve of scheduled depositions, and·effectively cancelled
all depositions that were scheduled in this c_ase. Your Honor’s Opinion and Order dated February
‘ 2, 2006 (D.E. 47), directed counsel to confer and agree upon a Scheduling Order, on or before
February 15, 2006. Now, more than three months after Your HIonor’s decision, not one single
_ deposition has been taken in this case. · I _ - I
‘ The parties were unable to reach an agreement withIrespect to a new Scheduling Order,
which resulted in a letter from counsel for BOBC to Your Honor, dated February 15, 2006 (D.E.
. 48); and a letter from my office on behalf of CCI, dated February 17, 2006 (D.E. 50). In its
I ` letter, BOBC took the position that non-expert depositions should be concluded by June 14,
‘ 2006, now a mere five weeks away. BOBC also took the position that depositions should not be
—- . concluded until after mediation, which was scheduled for March 15, 2006. Regrettably, the
` . I- mediation did not go forward, due to an illness of the Magistrate Judge. Despite the_ efforts of the I ‘
Magistrate Judge, mediation has notbeen rescheduled. In his letter to Your Honor of February ·
17, 2006, CCI reques_ted that, since depositions must move forward, they should begin prior to
. I the mediation. CCI further requested that, since the order of the scheduled depositions had been
_ I ` » agreed upon between all counsel,‘including current counsel for BOBC, such order should be I
I maintained. Nonetheless, BOBC and Forest would not agree on the same order of depositions,
I and the proposed mediation came and went, without any depositions. `
Philadelphia l Pittsburgh I Wilmington , .
‘ - s ' I ` Harrisburg l New Jersey I I

Case 1 :05-cv-00300-JJF Document 82 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 2 of 3 _
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. ‘ - -
May 4, 2006 ·
Pa e Two I `
Thereafter, this ofiice wrote to defense coimsel on March 29, 2006, again raising the
‘ issue of depositions, and suggesting the order of depositions be as follows:
• Banc One 30(b)(6); I _
• Forest Electric 30(b)(6); - `
• Terry Peng — Forest Employee; V
• Len Beck —— Forest Employee;
• Fred Street- CCI Employee; 7
• Charles Doble — CCI Employee;
•· Paul Brainard — Former CCI Employee.
CCI suggested April 26-27, May 1-4, and May 8-12, as dates to schedule these depositions. ‘
Coimsel for BOBC responded by letter on April 6, 2006, professing willingness to discuss a
deposition schedule, but indicating ". . .we are not willing to proceed with depositions until Q
documents have been exchanged by the parties." BOBC then contends a_Q documents are not
exchanged until all outstanding discovery motions are resolved. BOBC also contended _
depositions would not be appropriate pending resolution by Your Honor of the motions tiled by
BOBC and Forest to amend their respective Answers to the Complaint.
Further, although counsel for CCI and then-counsel for both Forest and BOBC had
agreed upon the order of the schedule of depositions, counsel for BOBC then determined it
would only agree to a schedule that had all CCI witnesses iirst and BOBC witnesses last, and in
the following order: . `
• Patricia Creedon; ‘ _
• Creedon Controls, Inc. 30(b)(6);
• Charles Doble;
` • Fred Street; » · l
. • Paul Brainard; ‘
· • Dennis Link; ` -
• Forest 30(b)(6);
• Terry Peng; i r
• Len Beck;
• BOBC 30(b)(6).
The parties did not reach an agreement with respect to any one single deposition; and, on April I
7, 2006, BOBC iiled notices of depositions of Patricia Creedon (D.E. 71) and CCI 30(b)(6) (D.E.
72), for May 22-23, 2006, without verifying the availability of coimsel for CCI for those dates.
By letter of April 7, 2006, counsel for Forest concurred with BOBC’s position. As a result, e
although this litigation now approaches one year hom its removal to this Court, not one single
deposition has been taken.

Case 1 :05-cv-00300-JJF Document 82 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 3 of 3
The Honorable Joseph J. Faman, Jr. `
May 4, 2006
Page Three · .
In order to break this impasse, and although believed to be totally unfair to CCI, and a
reward of Defendants’ attempts to totally stall this litigation, counsel for CCI called counsel for
BOBC on April 21, 2006, to indicate CCI would agree the depositions of Patricia Creedon and I
‘ the 30(b)(6) deposition Creedon Controls, Inc., if the order of depositions that was previously
agreed to by former counsel for both BOBC and Forest would be adhered to and if the CCI
depositions would not exceed one day each, without the remaining depositions proceeding. [
Receiving no response, counsel for CCI again called counsel for BOBC on April 25, 2006, at
which time counsel for BOBC indicated BOBC was "mulling over" its position. Counsel for CCI
again called counsel for BOBC on April 27, 2006, only to be told that BOBC was continuing to
"mull over" the proposal.
In a further effort to get this litigation back on track and to start the deposition process,
counsel for CCI, by letter dated April 27, 2006, essentially proposed to BOBC that not only »
could both the deposition of Patricia Creedon, and the Creedon Controls 30(b)(6) deposition be
taken @, but that all of CCI ‘s witnesses could be deposed first, and BOBC last, if BOBC q
would agree the depositions of Patricia Creedon and Creedon Controls be only one day each, and
that the depositions be scheduled at a time convenient for the parties, and in a relatively short
time period. Not receiving a response to that letter, counsel for CCI again called counsel for
BOBC on May 3, 2006. BOBC continues its mulling.
It is clear that BOBC will continue to mull, and Forest will continue to march to the same
tune, unless this Court intervenes. This letter is delivered to Your Honor in accordance with 0
§8(d) of the Scheduling Order dated July 28, 2005 (D.E. 9). CCI believes the problem created
0 and asserted by BOBC and Forest, require the Court’s attention on an emergency basis. It is
therefore requested that the Court set a Scheduling Conference or establish a Scheduling Order,
at the Court’s earliest convenience. I
Respectfully submitted,
s/d i ' Q
ROBERT K. BESTE, JR.
RKB/msj .
cc: Paul A. Bradley, Esq. [via e-filing and First-Class mail] _
Philip Trainer, Jr., Esq. [via e-filing and First-Class mail]
Jodi A. Kleinick, Esq. [via facsimile to (212)319-4090]
Edward Seglias, Esq.[by facsimile] q i "
Creedon Controls, Inc. [by facsimile]
06894-0001