Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cv-00300-JJF Document 155 Filed 12/06/2006 Page 1 of 2
ASHBY 8. GEDDES
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW T5|_5;p|-|°NE
222 DELAWARE AVENUE °°2`°°4"°°°
P. 0. BOX 1150 3¤;'i;;'i:;`:67
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899
December 6, 2006
VIA E-FILIN G & HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Joseph J. F aman, Jr.
United States District Court
844 King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
RE: Creedon Controls, Inc. v. Banc One Building Corporation, etal.,
C.A. No. 05-300-JJF
Dear Judge Faman:
We, along with Paul, Hastings, J anofsky & Walker, LLP, represent Banc One Building
Corporation ("BOBC") in this action. As the Court knows, we requested that the pretrial
conference now set for January ll, 2007 be rescheduled until a time after all discovery was
complete. Counsel for Plaintiff; Creedon Controls Inc. ("Creedon"), has submitted its response,
opposing an extension and raising a series of other issues. We believe that Creedon’s letter
demands a response.
As a preliminary point, we note that Creedon’s counsel has suggested a telephonic or in-
person conference with the Court. We do not oppose such a conference, and would adjust our
schedules if the Court would prefer to hear from counsel directly on any of the issues.
Second, while Creedon states its opposition to any rescheduling of the pretrial
conference, it provides not a single basis on which the Court reasonably could find that the
conference should not be postponed. Indeed, Creedon admits that it would be better in the
ordinary course if all discovery were complete before the pretrial conference were held; and
there is no indication that a short delay in the pretrial will affect scheduling of trial, and Creedon
makes no claim to the contrary.
Third, Creedon now seeks to involve the court in mediation issues. We respectfully
submit that the Court would be better served by confirming with Magistrate Judge Thynge — as
opposed to counsel-- the iiill context of her remarks regarding continued mediation. At the end
of the last mediation, Magistrate Thynge emphasized her own view that while the case might be
capable of settlement, the distance between the parties was unlikely to lessen until the pending

Case 1:05—cv—00300-JJF Document 155 Filed 12/06/2006 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Joseph J. F arnan, Jr.
December 6, 2006
Page 2
summary judgment motions were resolved. Magistrate Thynge generously agreed to assist the
parties in further discussions once the motions were detennined, and also suggested that the trial
date be set so as to provide another chance for settlement before the burden and expense of trial.
When Creedon later suggested that the parties seek a further mediation session, we
reminded Creedon’s counsel of the Magistrate J udge’s views, and agreed to a preliminary
contact so that there would be a time available once the motions were decided. In the weeks
since, we have heard nothing from Creedon’s counsel concerning the Magistrate J udge’s
schedule. And Counsel’s reference to potential private mediation is news indeed — raised in
Creedon’s letter for the tirst time and never discussed with us.
In summary, Creedon’s letter provides no basis on which the Court should not put over
the pretrial conference rmtil the conclusion of discovery. We remain ready to make our
calendars work if the Court wishes a conference.
Philip 'l;1§er, Jr. (#2788)
cc: Paul Bradley, Esq. (via ejiling)
Robert Beste, Esq. (via ejiling)
175789.1