Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 142.0 kB
Pages: 3
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 743 Words, 4,727 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/8846/99-19.pdf

Download Motion to Compel - District Court of Delaware ( 142.0 kB)


Preview Motion to Compel - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:04-cv-01494-JJF Document 99-19 Filed 12/15/2006 Page 1 of 3
Exh1b1t P

· Case 1 :04-cv-01494-JJF Document 99-19 Filed 12/15/2006 Page 2 of 3 5
Cunris, MAt.L.=;r—PRavosr, Coast as. Moshe t.x.i=··
Arromaavs me Couusztrons AT uw
Fmemronr Muscar l O I P"*RK AVE"UE
Housron Fame New YORK, New YGRK l O I 7B—OO5 I Tauapwonz 2 I 2-595—6000
Lonoon Smmrorze Fnoslmea 2 t 2·697~ I 559
Mexico Cmr Wasi-amoron, D.C. E-Mm. lNl'·'O@CM¢.COM.
MILAN INTERNET www.cM-t=.coM
WRITER'S DIRECT:
ret.; at aeee-ease
December ll, 2006
Bonnie Steingart, Esq.
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP
One New York Plaza
New York, NY 10004-1980
Re: Mczgterz Asset Management Corp. and Law
Debenture Trust C0. v. North Western Corp.;
C.A. No. 04-1494-.UF
Dear Bonnie:
l am receipt ot` your letters dated December 4 and 5 regarding document
discovery and depositions. We disagree with your contention that NoithWestem has been
dilatory in responding to Magten’s discovery requests. To the contrary, since your requests
became operative on September 29, NorthWestern has submitted its Responses and Objections to
Plaintit`t`s’ First Request for Production of Documents, produced documents and explored with
you ways to cut down the time and expense of an enormous document production by entering _,
into stipulations where appropriate.
With respect to the proposed stipulation, once we have had an opportunity to
review the draft stipulation which you are preparing, we will give you our views as to how to Q
best represent the value of the support agreements between NorthWestem and Clark Fork. Q
Because discovery is consolidated in these three actions, we believe you are correct that all
defendants will have to agree to the stipulation.
With respect to a timetable for responding to the remainder ofthe requests that are
not the subject ofthe proposed stipulation, we hope to have additional documents to you later
this week. We do not agree that all of the documents produced to the SEC are necessarily
relevant to the issues in this litigation. However, to the extent that the production of any of these §
documents are called tbr, and they are otherwise relevant and not privileged, they will be
produced. ln addition, we are advised that no documents were produced to the McGreevy
plaintifts in their lawsuit involving the Transfer. We will endeavor to continue to produce
documents responsive to your requests on a continuing basis. However, until we have agreed on
2202797vI

Case 1 :04-cv-01494-JJF Document 99-19 Filed 12/15/2006 Page 3 of 3
cusms, MAt.r.Er-Paavosr. com as Moses l.i.1¤ BOYml€ Stelngarli ESC}
Arroknzvs Anzo Couneesaaous AT uw Page 2 December 1 1,
the scope of production, including any possible stipulation, we cannot advise you ofthe date
upon. which we expect NorthWestern’s document production to be completed.
With respect to request number 8, we do not recall reaching an agreement as to
how to speciztically narrow this request. We would suggest limiting the request to documents
covering the QUIPS and/or the QUlPS indenture which relate to the Transfer or the impact ofthe
Transfer on the QUIPS holders.
Your understanding of our discussion regarding our response to requests 12, 19
and 30 is accurate — we will produce responsive documents subject to our general objections.
With respect to the six witnesses you currently anticipate deposing, please be
advised that they are no longer employed by NorthV~/estem or its subsidiaries and we do not
represent them and are not authorized to accept service on their behalf As soon as we learn the
identity of counsel for these witnesses, we will pass it along. Your primary contact for Mr.
Hanson, as well as Mr. Kindt should continue to be the Browning, Kaleczyc tirm. We will take
under advisement your request for the names ofthe individuals who have received Wells notices.
On a related matter, we have not yet received any ofthe correspondence you or
your local counsel have had with non—parties regarding subpoenas.
Yours truly,
cc: Gary L. Kaplan, Esq.
John W. Brewer, Esq.
Bijan Arnini, Esq.
Jesse H. Austin, lll, Esq.
Victoria W. Counihan, Esq.
Dennis E. Glazer, Esq.
David A. Jenkins, Esq. §
Paul Spagnoletti, Esq.
Denise Seastone Krall, Esq.
Adam G. Landis, Esq. §
Dennis A. Meloro, Esq.
Curtis S. Miller, Esq.
Kathleen M. Miller, Esq.
John V. Snellings, Esq. §
Dale R. Dubé, Esq.
Stanley T. Kaleczyc, Esq.
Kimberly A. Beatty, Esq.
3302797vl