Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05—cv—00224-GIVIS Document 67 Filed 06/20/2006 Page 1 of 2
OBERLY, J ENNINGS & RHODUNDA, P.A.
1220 Market Street — Suite 710
P. O. Box 2054
Wilmington, Delaware 19899
Charles M. Oberly, lll (302) 5764000
Kathleen M. Jennings Fax (302) $76·2004
William .1. anaemia, Jr. _ _ E·'·N°· 5}·°36‘*26*
___ _____ ____ Wr1ter’s e-mail [email protected]
Karen V. Sullivan
Ql une 20, 2006
VIA E—FILlNG
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
U.S. District Court
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
RE: Pettingill, et al. v. Caldwell, et al.
C.A. N0. 05-224 SLR
Dear Chief Judge Robinson:
l write to determine whether the Court desires a response from plaintiffs to Mr. Bennett’s
June 13, 2006 letter regarding the board meeting minutes. During the May 16, 2006 discovery
conference, Your Honor allowed plaintiffs a week to respond to defendants’ submission
regarding the board meeting minutes. The Order entered after the discovery conference,
however, did not contain a time for plaintiffs to respond. Your Honor today ordered defendant
Delaware SPCA to submit the meeting minutes to the Court for an in camera review, which is
what plaintiffs would have requested. I have concluded, perhaps erroneously, that the Court
does not desire a response to the legal arguments made by defendants. lf 1 am incorrect, or if
after conducting the in camera review, Your Honor determines that a response from plaintiffs to
defendants’ legal arguments would be helpful, I respectfully request that the Court so advise.
With Your Honor’s indulgence, l will briefly address a few factual issues raised by Mr.
Bennett’s letter that I believe are important to consider during Your Honor’s nz camem review.
First, the defendants assert both the attorney client privilege and the work product doctrine for
the February 15 , 2005 meeting minutes which contain a "recommendation from Nancy Law,
Esquire? Ms. Law is a board member that happens to be an attorney and has not been retained
to represent the Delaware SPCA. As such, she was acting in her role as a board member and not
an attorney. As a result, the meeting minutes reflecting her comments would not be protected by
the attorney client privilege.

Case 1:05—cv—00224-Gl\/IS Document 67 Filed 06/20/2006 Page 2 of 2
Second, while it may only be a matter of semantics, Mr. Bennett does not state that the
meeting minutes have not been disseminated to anyone other than the members of the board of
directors. He states, "it is my understanding that the minutes are only disseminated to the Board
of Directors? Of course, if the minutes were disseminated outside of the members of the board
of directors, any privilege that might have protected the minutes would be waived.
Finally, defendants raise a relevance objection to the J une l7, 2003 minutes regarding
"Color photographs of Pettingill animals for use in fundraising efforts." As Your Honor may
recall from the discovery conference, when and by whom the photographs of the Pettingill
animals were taken is in issue. Thus, minutes reflecting discussions of photographs of the
Pettingill animals are relevant.
I am available at the convenience of the Court to answer any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
U
KAREN V. SULLIVAN (N0. 3872)
/KVS
cc: Daniel P. Bennett, Esquire (via efiling)