Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cv-00298-JJF Document 82 Filed O4/25/2006 Page 1 of 2
Potter
E“E A11Ci€1“SO1l
&,, CO1"1"OO1'l LLP
Stephen C. Norman
Partner
13t3 North lvlsrkui. Smear Attorney at Law
QQ BUXQJ51 SGOUHml@pOllCF&Hd€fSDH COI`!}
xvrmswm. pr. isscaoasi 302 98*6038 Dim l’h¤¤¤
302 9,; 6000 302 658-i 192 rmt
\V\\'\V.p()Hl!!’1I.l}(l0P5£)l1.C{)IT}
April 25, 2006
VIA EQFILE
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, ir.
United States District Court
District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware l980l
Re: Frank D. Seinfeld v. Craig R. Barrett, etal.,
D. Del., C.A. 05-298-JIP
Dear Judge Parnan:
We submit the following on behalf of defendants in the above-captioned action.
The parties have agreed on most ofthe provisions of the Rule 16 Scheduling Order, but have not
been able to reach an agreement regarding the case schedule in one material respect. The parties
disagree about whether plaintiff should be permitted to take 80 depositions in this action.
Because the parties cannot reach an agreement on this issue, l am submitting defendant? form of
Rule 16 Scheduling Order as Exhibit A. For the reasons set forth below, defendants request that
this Court enter their form of Rule 16 Scheduling Order, or, inthe alternative, hold a conference
to discuss scheduling.
As Your Honor may recall, this is not a complicated case requiring extensive
discovery. To the contrary, the only issue in this case is whether the director defendants violated
Rule 14A and/or their fiduciary duties by making certain statements in Inte1’s 2004 Proxy
Statement regarding the EOIP that were allegedly false and misleading. Despite the simple
nature of this case, plaintiff has proposed to take 80 depositions. if plaintiff s request is granted,
he plans to take the deposition of every director and virtually every executive officer of intel, as
well as 46 other Intel employees and its accountants and compensation consultants. A list of
plaintiffs proposed deponents is attached as Exhibit B.
Such a request should be rejected. Plaintiff s claims are relatively simple, and
turn on the alleged falsity ofthe Proxy Statement or what th directors knew at the time the
Proxy Statement was issued; knowledge and actions of the other individuals is largely irrelevant.

Case 1:05-cv-00298-JJF Document 82 Filed O4/25/2006 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Joseph .l. Farnan, Jr-
April 25, 2006
Page 2
Although more depositions thanjust the directors might be appropriate, there is simply no
justification for plaintiff s tlneat to take 80 depositions other than hmassment—and plaintiff has
offered Intel no reason for such an excessive number of depositions. We suggest that a more
appropriate approach is to permit the parties to take 25 depositions and for plaintiff to seek leave
of court and make a showing of good cause if he believes additional depositions are necessary.
For the foregoing reasons, defendants respectfully request that the Court enter
their fonn of order. In the alternative, defendants request that the Court schedule a conference in
order to resolve the competing forms of Rule 16 Scheduling Order.
Respectfully, _
Stephen C. Norman (LD. #2686)
snorinan{@,;;gotteranderson.com
SCN/dxbzrzazrswr
Enclosures
cc: Clerk of the Court vv/encs (By E—File and Hand Delivery)
Francis G. X. Pileggi, Esquire w/encs (By E—File)