Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

9UG—19—%e 1t§0®2:v—00022-lVHl’l$EY·l@o’§]Ui5r1’ent 49-2 Filed 08/19/2005 Page 1 of 3 Pt @2/ 4
DEASEK MAHONEY & BEN DER, lLTl`D.
arrottrtnvs AT mw · ttttooross nt ADMIZR./\L“l'Y
rumors i. passer SUITE 1300 Ngw rgnggv operon;
HARRY G MAHONEY 18UU JOHN F. KENNEDY BOULEVARD 55 TANNER 5·ry{E5T
MMESW DM..Y·t PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103-2978 }-iAUDONF|E]___[]' Ni nao33-z419
GERALD J. VAl.El*i'F1NIt 2i5~587·-9400 g56,4gg_633;
JAMES B. BURNS1 FACSIMKEZ 215-587-94% [:A{jg]M;[__g; g5(,.42t)-555Q
JANE A. Nonmr
anna: Mascot.; nmncr s-Marci raeurtnsqqzomsrntutcom uecumrm,
CMM l' MARESC/‘·l'° voice-mrut. exrenston #1 77 ·’·t·*N*< Ci **¤t'*·°****
ADAM Jr PANTANOT wn.t.mrrra.nc.nssv
CRAIG M STRAW wai-uw:
WARD A. RWERS1 mms o. crowns
canteen n sstt.1 Augugt 19_ 2005 tttt-rtw
CHRISTOPHER C NEGREFE 1ALq0MEMBERN]BAR
STEPHEN} PARlSE§ ;.u.so mzarnnett on amt
CZ-HUSTOPIIER T HUBER ¢ AI..Sl) MEMBER on can
PATRICIA Er McEN'TEER ¤ Atso znzttmten NY can
Mtcmtst. J, ntwtttsr
Tttov to stsoM·1· _
rxzrrrrtrert a ntinrsai
The Honorable Kent A- Jordan
U.S. District Court for the District of `Deiaware
I. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
844 N. King Street ‘
Room 6325
Lockbox I0
Wilmington, DE l980l
RE: St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. et. al. v. Maly Yan; Civil Action Nu. 05~0022
Dear Judge J ordan:
We represent plaintiffs, St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company and Peck & Process, inc.
As required by this Court’s July 29, 2005 Order, we contacted dct`endant’s counsel earlier this
week to initiate a discussion regarding a joint discovery plan and the draft case management
order which the Court had circuiated, While we were able to reach agreement on some items, we
were not able to agree on certain others. Although we had intended to subunit this letter as a joint
discovery plan, we received a message from defcndanfs counsel this morning that defendant has
decided to independently submit her proposed plan to the Court today. Thus, while we cannot
represent that this letter constitutes a joint plan, we have attempted to summarize those areas
where we believe the parties were able to reach agreement, and those areas Where no agreement
could be reached. lf a particular provision in the Court’s proposed order is not mentioned in this
letter, it means that our clients tind that provision, as drafted, acceptable (and, based upon our
conference with defendanvs counsel, wc believe she has no objection either),
Before listing our comments, please be edvised that the parties have agreed that the action
which was transferred to this Court by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania and cloekcted here on July 21, 2005

QUG·-19— h:.®@:ev—OOO22-ItA&t?1§EY—E)etouHrent 49-2 Filed 08/19/2005 Page 2 of 3 F'-@3/@4
PAGE ,,0 2 To The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
‘ August 19, 2005
(Docket No 05»5 1 3 (SLR)) should be consolidated with the instant action for purposes of case
management, discovery and trial. We believe this is consistent with Your Honofs suggestion to
us at the May 25, 2005 hearing, that consolidation would be appropriate. Unless directed by the
Court otherwise, the parties plan to file stipulations in the next few days to effectuate this
consolidations
Our comments on the draft order, keyed to its peragmpli numbers, follow. In proposing
dates, we respectfully request that the starting point for the "eloek" be July 21 , 2005, or the date
on which the transferred Pennsylvania case was docketcd here, since the parties have effectively
not been able to proceed with this action until the Pennsylvania case arrived, and since the
transferred case aHects many more perti es than this action, it would seem appropriate to use the
latter date as the starting point.
SPECHVIC COMMENTS
l. The parties have reviewed the Dethult Standard for E—discovery and have reached
an agreement on the exchange of electronic documents such that they do not wish to be bound by
the default rule, Specifically, the parties are in agreement that to the extent documents or
infomation kept by them in electronic fomi are requested in discovery, and to the extent such
matters are discoverable and not confidential or protected by any privilege, they will be produced
in discovery.
2i The parties agreed that they would like 120 days from the date of tiling, (to
January 2i, 2006) in which to move for the joinder of other parties
3i(s) The parties agreed to tequest that no limitation should be imposed upon hours of
testimony, as the amount of time required, given the sigiiiicant number of potential witnesses
and the need for translators for the numerous Cambodian, Pakistani and Indonesian witness
(effectively doubling the time of many depositions) makes it difficult to predict how many hours
will be needed. In the alternative, we agreed that if the Coun requires e specific cap on the
number of deposition hours, each side should be limited to 100 hours.
3.(`o) Since many witnesses are located in Pennsylvania or other states, the parties
sgeed to request that they be permitted to conduct depositions outside of Delswaxe as may be
necessary for the convenience of parties, witnesses and counsel.
3-(c) The parties differ on when discovery should end. Defendant advised that she
would seek a discovery out-·of'f of 8 months (to 3/2l/06), while plaintiffs seek 14 months to
complete discovc1y(to 9/21/06) The cutoff in either case wouid apply to both fact witnesses and
experts.
9. The parties differ on when dispositive motions should be due. Defendamt advised
that she would request 30 days after the close of discovery and plaintiffs request 60 days after the
close of discovery-

eus—1e—@e ‘n1>&—;ev—00022-Ik/H%*§EY—rEJ2b+oUHYent 49-2 Filed 08/19/2005 Page 3 of 3 F’—@‘l”€l‘*
mg ,,0 3 TD The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
August 19, 2005 _
14.. The parties differ on when triai should be scheduled. Defendant advised that she
would request a trial date within 12 months of tiling (7/21/06), while pisintiffs request zi trial date
within 18 months of tiling (1/21/07).
Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing, We will be prepared to discuss these
and other matters with the Court during the August 24, 2004 teiephone conference.
_ Very truly yours,
DEASEY, MAHONEY & BENDER., LTD.
B ._ _ ·
J S B UR S
IBB/mmf
cc: Yvonne 'I`akvotirtn—Say’iile, Esquire (vic: facsimile)
Jonathan M. Cohen, Esquire (viczfézesimile)
Joshua Van Naarden, Esquire (viqqfacstmile)
Joseph Koury, Esquire (via facsimile)