Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

_; __ :05-cv—00022-MPT Document 142 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 1 of 3
.·`E'-. ` '__` • " *
BifferofoGenfiIoffi
5:- -—--- Chad J. Toms, Esquire 1
ATTORNEYS AT LAW AisoAdmittedinNJ
~· wi ‘ i ori
E W““”·b9'8Wd@·°°m Direct fgniliabgi `/Eig?7471
Q [email protected]
October 30, 2007
j; Via Electronic File h
The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge
1 J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
844 N. King Street, Room 6100
_ Lock Box 8
-¤, Wilmington, DE 19801
Y Re: St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, et al. v. Maly Yan, et al.
C.A. No. 05-22-MPT
3- Our File N0. 350.21939
Dear Judge T hynge:
ji In accordance with this Honorable Court’s Order of October 3, 2007, and in furtherance
of the parties’ teleconference with this Honorable Court of October 24, 2007, St. Paul Mercury
Insurance Company and Pack & Process, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Plaintiffs”)
hereby object to Defendants’ Revised Notice of Deposition pursuant to Fed.R.C.P. 30(b)(6) (a
copy of which is attached hereto and marked as Exhibit "A") for the reasons stated herein.
1 nAcKeRoUND
In response to a records deposition, Plaintiffs produced Michael Warren, an employee of
The Travelers Inderrmity Company and its property casualty affiliates, including St. Paul
Mercury Insurance Company, for deposition on September 26, 2006. During the deposition,
Defendants’ counsel attempted to question Mr. Warren about certain documents produced by
A Plaintiffs in advance of the deposition. Plaintiffs’ counsel objected and instructed Mr. Warren
cy not to answer on the grounds that the questions exceeded the scope of inquiry contained Within
_,§ the Notice of Deposition. A call was placed to the Honorable Kent A. Jordan, who agreed with
,3- Plaintiffs’ counsel that Defendants’ questions exceeded the scope of the deposition notice. Judge
Jordan ordered Defendants’ counsel to serve a Notice of Corporate Deposition upon Plaintiffs if
Wilmington Office
‘ ` 800 N. King Street
P.O. Box 2165 Newark Office Lewes Office
2 Wilmington, DE 19899-2165 100 Biddle Avenue, Suite 100 119 West Third Street
i_· Courier Zip: (19801) Newark, DE 19702 Lewes, DE 19958
Phone: (302) 429-1900 Phone: {302) 429-1900 Phone: (302) 644-0302
1 |\/lain Fax: (302) 429-8600 ii/Iain fax: (302) 832-7540 Main Fax: (302) 644-0306
BIFFERATO GENTiLOTTI LLC

Q Case 1 :05-cv-00022—I\/I PT Document 142 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 2 of 3
Bifferato Gentilotti LLC
2 of 2
{ October 30, 2007

they intended to further explore these topics, and iirrther advised the parties to "work out the
timing and logistics” of such a deposition. Thirteen months later, after the submission of Cross
Motions for Summary Judgment and the Order and Opinion of this Honorable Court,
Defendants’ counsel served a Revised Notice of Deposition pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) (see
Exhibit “A"). Plaintiffs obj ect to this Revised Notice of Deposition on the grounds that the
information sought is irrelevant to the narrow issues of triable fact which remain in the case.
, Further, the Revised Notice of Deposition is not calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
evidence with respect to the narrow issues of triable fact remaining in the case.
_ On September 18, 2007, this Honorable Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying
the Cross Motions for Summary Judgment. In conclusion, this Honorable Court found that there
are genuine issues of rnaterial fact "regarding the conversation between Yan and Newsome and
ii, whether, as a result of that conversation a reasonable person would have interpreted that Pack &
_ Process actually authorized her to transport workers. Further, under implied authority, whether
_ Yan was acting within the course of employment at the time of the accident, . . .." None of the
areas of inquiry contained within the Revised Notice of Deposition tangentially refer to the
f narrow issues of material fact remaining in this case. The depositions of Maly Yan, Yan Thou
and all relevant present and former employees of Pack & Process have been completed. The
FT Revised Notice of Deposition requests a corporate designee to testify regarding "docurnents
.'_` produced." Even a cursory review of the areas of inquiry contained within the Revised Notice of
Deposition reveals that the infonnation sought and the "docrunents produced" bear absolutely no
relationship to the remaining narrow issues of triable fact.
Moreover, in advance of the deposition of Michael Warren, Defendants’ counsel was
ii advised of the documents, which would be produced in response to the notice of records
deposition (see correspondence of August 30, 2006 attached hereto as Exhibit “B”). Thus, to the
_.‘. extent that this Honorable Court believes that the Revised Notice of Deposition seeks relevant
if information or infonnation that is calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence,
Plaintiffs respectfully request an Order limiting the scope of the deposition to the documents
if produced in advance of Michael Warren’s deposition. Otherwise, the breadth and scope of the
`_ deposition would be without proper parameters. As this Honorable Court is aware, a Rule
_1 30(b)(6) corporate designee can bind a corporation with his/her testimony. Thus, it is
3 fundamentally unfair to allow a corporate designee to be asked questions beyond the areas of
Qi inquiry identified within the Notice of Corporate Deposition. Therefore, should this Honorable `
_` Court permit the requested deposition, Defendants should be limited to questioning any
Z; corporate designee to the documents already produced which relate to the areas of inquiry in the
V: Revised Notice of Corporate Deposition.

Case 1 :05-cv-00022-MPT Document 142 Filed 10/30/2007 Page 3 of 3
j Bifferato Gentilotti LLC
2 or 2
October 30, 2007
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request an Order precluding the
deposition or, in the alternative, an Order limiting the breadth and scope ofthe deposition to the Q
documents already produced, which relate and/or refer to the areas of inquiry contained within Q
the Revised Notice of Deposition. Finally, Plaintiffs reserve all specific objections to specific Q
Y questions asked during the deposition. 1
Q; Respectfully submitted,
-( ,2%
U Chad J. Toms 155) _
‘? Enclosure
i cc: Francis Deasey, Esquire (via e-correspondence)
_ Yvonne Takvorian Saville, Esquire (via e-correspondence) 1 Q
Y: Michael Sensor, Esquire (via e-correspondence)
Robert Miller, Esquire (via e—correspondence) F
Richard Costigan, Esquire (via e-correspondence) g
Steven Dranofi, Esquire (via e-correspondence)
Warren Siegel, Esquire (via e—correspondence)
Jonathan Cohen, Esquire (via e-correspondence)
Hemi Marcel, Esquire (via e-correspondence)
ii Robert F. Englert, Jr., Esquire (via e-correspondence) t