Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01494-JJF Document 77 Filed O2/23/2006 Page 1 of 3
EDWARDS ANGELL PALMER&DODGE up [
9l9 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 $02.7777770 fzx 302.777.7265 eapdlawxom l
Denise Seastone Kraft
$02.4257106 §
fax $88325.9741 ’
[email protected]
February 23, 2006 i
Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. l
U.S. District Court for the I
District of Delaware ;
844 North King Street
Lock Box 27
Wilmington, DE 19801 E
l
RE: Magten Asset Management Corp., et al. v. North Western Corp.
C.A. No. 04-1494-JJF
Magten Asset Management Corp., etal. v. Paul Hastings Janofsky &
Walker, PLLC;
C.A. No. 04-1256-JJF i
Magten Asset Management Corp., et al. v. Mike .1 Hanson and Ernie .1 Kindt
C.A. No. 05-0499-JJF
Dear Judge F arnan: ;
This firm represents Mike J. Hanson and Ernie J. Kindt ("Messrs. Hanson and Kindt") as
co-counsel with the law firm of Browning, Kaleczyc, Berry and Hoven in above—referenced C.A. i
No. 05-0499-JJF. We are writing in response to the letter dated February 22, 2006 from Dale R.
Dube written on behalf of Magten Asset Management Corporation ("Magten") in which, among .
other things, the status of discovery in Magten Asset Management Corp. v. Hanson, et al., C.A.
No. 05-0499-JJF is discussed.
The letter states that Magten is “seeking guidance" with respect to the status of the stay l
upon discovery currently in effect in this case and then suggests that either this Court or the
Special Master should lift the stay, which is asserted to be an “impedirnent" to discovery in this
matter. For the reasons discussed below, we would suggest to the Court that it is premature to Y
consider the issue of lifting the stay and that, instead, this Court either directly or through the l
Special Master appointed in this matter, Mr. James, first dispose of the pending Motion for li
Protective Order filed by NorthWestern Corporation, in which the Defendants in Magten v. 1
Hanson have joined. g
By way of background, we note the following: l

Boston | rr. otuorrrosrri nntrroso | Nw roam prrovrorncs i snorr runs l srnrroao t wrsr mn Baton |\X·'TLM.l`NGTON i tonnes l
l

E
Case 1 :04-cv-01494-JJF Document 77 Filed O2/23/2006 Page 2 of 3
l
EDWARDS ANGELL PAI.MER&DODGE LLP l
Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
February 23, 2006
Page 2
First, contemporaneously with his Order transferring this action from the United States i
District Court for the District of Montana to the United States District Court for the District of i
Delaware, on July 13, 2005, the Hon. Richard Cebull entered a Supplemental Order vacating his E
previous scheduling order in this matter and staying all discovery in Magten v. Hanson. E
Second, notwithstanding the stay on discovery, on January 24, 2006, Magten served
additional discovery on Messrs. Hanson and Kindt. As we advised counsel for Magten on
January 26, 2006, the Defendants in Magten v. Hanson continue to maintain that they are under
no obligation to respond to discovery from the plaintiffs unless and until the Court lifts the stay. g
Third, on January 31, 2006, Magten attempted to circumvent the stay on discovery in -_
Magren v. Hanson, by threatening to serve Messrs. Hanson and Kindt with subpoenas dnces i
tecum as third party witnesses in Case No. 04-1494—JJ F, Magten’s action against Northwestern
Corporation. On February 2, 2006, we again advised counsel for Magten of our position that the __
stay in Magten v. Hanson likewise prevents discovery directed to Messrs. Hanson and Kindt in
Case No. 04-1949-JJF tmtil such time as the stay is lifted.
Finally, on February 13, 2006, Messrs. Hanson and Kindt joined in the Motion for a
Protective Order filed on February 2, 2006 by Nort.hWestern Corporation in Case No. 04-1494-
J JF . As a result of NorthWestem’s Motion and the joinder of Messrs. Hanson and Kindt in that
Motion, pursuant to Local Rule 30.2, any obligation to respond to pending discovery is stayed l
pending the disposition of NorthWestem’s Motion.
In light of the foregoing, we respectfully suggest that, in the interests of judicial economy I
and in recognition of the fact that the parties to the three above-referenced actions have agreed l
that the three actions should be consolidated for purposes of coordinating what otherwise would l
be duplicative and redundant discovery, this Court; should take under advisement any `
consideration of the lifting of the stay until such time as the Court rules on NorthWestern’s
Motion} As noted above, Magten has pending discovery directed to Messrs. Hanson and Kindt.
The Court’s ruling with respect to NorthWestern’s Motion and Messrs. Hanson and Kindt’s -
joinder thereto will dictate the scope of the discovery in all three cases and may very well impact
the Court’s decision whether to lift the stay of discovery in Magren v. Hanson. Q
l
l
or l
1 At that time, the Court may also wish to request full or additional briefing from the parties on the i
stay issue rather than addressing the stay issue through letter correspondence to the Court. 1
l

Case 1 :04-cv-01494-JJF Document 77 Filed O2/23/2006 Page 3 of 3
Eowrtnos ANGELL PALMER&DODGE rrr
Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
February 23, 2006
Page 3
Messrs. Hanson and Kindt make these suggestions to the Court without prejudice to their
rights, or the rights of any other party, to make appropriate arguments either directly to this Court
or to the Special Master on the propriety of lifting the stay on discovery currently in place.
Respectfully,
D ai’t (gar 3527 ig)
DSK/nj
cc; Clerk of Court (Via ECF)
John E. James, Esquire (Via E—mail: j [email protected])
Dale R. Dube, Esq. (Via E-mail: [email protected])
Bonnie Steingart, Esq. (Via E-mail: steinbo@fried&ank.com)
Gary L. Kaplan, Esq. (Via E-mail: kaplaga@f1iedtrm1l<.com)
Kathleen M. Miller, Esq. (Via E-mail: [email protected])
Bijan Amini, Esq. (Via E—mail: [email protected])
Amanda Darwin, Esq. (Via E-mail: [email protected])
John V. Snellings, Esq. (Via E-mail: [email protected])
Stanley T. Kaleczyc, Esq. (Via E-mail: [email protected])
Kimberly Beatty, Esq. (Via E-mail: [email protected])
Paul Spagnoletti, Esq. (Via E-mail: [email protected])
Joseph D. Pizzurro, Esq. (Via E-mail: jpizzurro@cm—p.com)
Steven J. Reisman, Esq. (Via E—mail: [email protected])
Victoria W. Counihan (Via E-mail: [email protected])