Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 59.3 kB
Pages: 2
Date: September 21, 2005
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 392 Words, 2,424 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/30996/427-1.pdf

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 59.3 kB)


Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1 :97-cv-00586-SLR Document 427 Filed 09/21 /2005 Page 1 of 2
Ast-nav & GEDDES
ATTORNEYS AND couusELLoRs AT LAW TE!-¤PH¤N¤
302-654-ICB!
222 DELAWARE AVENUE
FACSIMILE
P. O. BOX ||5O aoz-sua-zoo?
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE l9899
September 21, 2005
BY E-FILE AND HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
United States District Judge
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
United States Courthouse
844 North King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: Ronald Cantor, et al. v. Ronald O. Perehnan, etal.
Civil Action No. 97-586 (KAJ [
Dear Judge Jordan:
This firm represents plaintiffs in the above-referenced action. During the
September 9, 2005 scheduling teleconference, the Court directed the parties to consult on
a proposed scheduling order. The parties have agreed on all the terms of the enclosed
proposed order, with one exception. Defendants would delete the phrase that appears at
the end of paragraph l(c) of the enclosed order — "except that such [Daubert] objections
to the expert testimony of Robert W. Holthausen and William H. Purcell as set forth in
the reports dated March 15, March 29 and April 9, 2002 shall be made by motion no later
than November 1, 2005" — and plaintiffs would include it.
Plaintiffs believe that Daubert objections to the expert testimony of Robert
W. Holthausen and William H. Purcell as set forth in the reports dated March 15, March
29 and April 9, 2002 should be made by motion no later than November l, 2005, while
defendants believe that such motions should be made no later than June 1, 2006. The
parties have had this expert testimony for more than three years at this point, and
plaintiffs do not believe that there is any reason to delay Daubert motions with respect to
this testimony. In addition, given the many other tasks before the parties in the months
prior to trial, plaintiffs believe that it makes sense to address these issues, if necessary,
sooner rather than later.

Case 1 :97-cv-00586-SLR Document 427 Filed 09/21 /2005 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
September 21, 2005
Page 2
We are, of course, available to address this issue or any other issues
further with Your Honor if requested.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Philqu Trainer, Jr.
Phillip Trainer, Jr. (I.D. #2788)
Enclosure
cc: (by facsimile w/ encl.)
Thomas Allingham, II, Esq.
Paul Lockwood, Esq.
Anthony W. Clark, Esq.
Edward A. Friedman, Esq.
161601.1