Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01551-JJF Document 351 Filed O9/28/2007 Page 1 of 2
Ast-sev 6. Gzooas
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW TELEPHONE
soo oE1.AwARE Avawua °°2`°°°"°°°
P. o. Box uso 3°;'f;;l:;`§6,
wu.M|NGTON,¤»1;LAwARr-: 19899
September 28, 2007
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. VIA ELECTRONIC FILING AND
United States District Court HAND DELIVERY
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Wells Fargo Bank NA. v. Royal, Case No. 02-1294-JJF;
Charles A. Stanziale, Jr., Chapter 7 Trustee of Student Finance Corp. v.
Pepper Hamilton, et al., Case No. 04-1551-JJF;
Charles A. Stanziale, Jr., Chapter 7 Trustee of Student Finance Corp. v.
McGladrey & Pullen LLP, et al., Case No. 05-72-JJF; and
Royal v. Pepper Hamilton, etal., Case No 05-165-JJF
Dear Judge Farnan:
We write on behalf of Royal Indenmity Company ("Royal"). In order to facilitate this
Wednesday’s pre-trial conference, enclosed please fmd courtesy copies of Royal’s motions in
limine, which address the following issues:
• Motion to exclude evidence regarding Roya1’s due diligence in connection
with the SFC transactions. As a matter of black-letter Pennsylvania law, Wells
cannot raise Royal’s alleged negligence as a defense to this breach of contract
action;
• Motion to exclude evidence regarding the conduct of SFC’s Attorneys and
Accountants. Wells cannot attempt to pass off its liability here onto the _
accountants and lawyers who perpetuated the fraud against Royal. Wells was
contractually obligated to protect Royal from precisely the conduct to which
Royal ultimately fell victim;
• Motion to exclude evidence regarding Royal’s alleged violation of Delaware
Insurance Code Section 909. Wells lacks standing to raise this argument, and
the Delaware Insurance Department, which closely monitored Royal at all

Case 1 :04-cv-01551-JJF Document 351 Filed O9/28/2007 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
September 28, 2007
Page 2
relevant times, never viewed Royal’s conduct in connection with the SFC
securitizations as a violation of this statute;
• Motion to exclude Royal’s internal employee performance evaluations. This
this Court has already stated that personnel evaluations are not proper evidence,
and they have no bearing on any issue, claim, or defense in this contract action;
• Motion to exclude evidence regarding "other" transactions conducted by
i Royal’s Financial Enhancements Unit. The soundness of other transactions
underwritten by Royal’s FEU — transactions that did not involve Wells or SFC in
any way — is irrelevant to the issue of whether Wells breached its contractual
obligations to Royal in connection with the SFC securitizations.
Every one of Royal’s motions in limine addresses evidence that, if admitted, will
necessitate a significant and very lengthy detour from the simple breach of contract case that will
be tried before Your Honor. We are prepared to discuss these motions with the Court at the pre-
trial conference.
Respectfully,
/s/ T Qfany Geyer Lydorz
Tiffany Geyer Lydon (l.D. #3950)
Enclosure
1:;:1597.1
cc: John W. Shaw, Esquire (by e-mail)
Andre G. Castaybert, Esquire (by e—mail)
Charlene Davis, Esquire (by e—mail)
Michael S. Waters, Esquire (by e-mail)
William H. Sudell, Jr., Esquire (by e—mail)
Michael R. Lastowski, Esquire (by e—mail)
Karen Lee Tumer, Esquire (by e-mail)
John H. Eickemeyer, Esquire (by e-mail)
Stephen Shapiro, Esquire (by e-mail)
Neil G. Epstein, Esquire (by e-mail)
David E. Wilks, Esquire (by e-mail)
Thomas Selby, Esquire (by e—mail)
Charles A. Gillman, Esquire (by e-mail)
Veronica E. Rendon, Esquire (by e—mail)