Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01416-JJF Document 66 Filed O1/O9/2006 Page 1 of 2
LAW OFFICES
BIRCH, HORTON, BITTNER AND CHEROT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
1155 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W. · SUITE 1200 · WASHINGTON, nc. zooss · TELEPHONE (zu;) asasaoo . FACSIMILE (202) 659-1027
HAL R, HORTON (1944 -1995)
YULIYA B, ANDRESYUK1 MAX D. GARNER THOMAS F. KLINKNER OF COUNSEL: 1127 WEST SEVENTH AVENUE
RONALD G, BIRCH" DAVID KARL GROSS HARVEY A, LEVIN"]‘ JENNIFER C. ALEXANDER ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501-3399
WILLIAM I-I, BITFNER TINA M. GROVIER STANLEY T. LEWIS JON M. DEVORE" (907) 216.1550
KATHRYN A. BLACK PATRICIA M. HARDINA JAMES H. LISTER"I0 SHELLEY D. EBENAL FACSIMILE (QD7) 275-3680
SUZANNE CHEROT WILLIAM P. HORN" GREGORY A. MILLER KENNETH E. VASSAR
KATHLEEN TOBIN ERB STEPHEN H. HUTCHINGS MICHAEL J. PARISE " D.C. EAR
MARK E. FINEMAN, P,E. ROY S. JONES, JR,' TIMOTHY J. PETUMENOS " D.C. AND ALASKA BAR
GREGORY S. FISHER SCOTT M, KENDALL ELISABETH H. ROSS*' t MARYLAND BAR
DOUGLAS S. FULLER‘ DANIEL C. KENT O VIRGINIA BAR
1 NEW YORK BAR
ALL OTHERS ALASKA BAR
January 6, 2006
By Overnight Service and Electronic Mail I
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
United States District Judge
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Jersey Shore Automation, Inc. v. Chugach Support Services, Inc., et al.
C.A. No. 04-1416 (JJF) (D. Del.)
Dear Judge Farnan:
We write as counsel, with Edmund D. Lyons, Jr., for Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs
Chugach Support Services, Inc. and Safeco Insurance Company of America in this matter,
further to Mr. Danberg’s email letter of January 4, 2006. Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs
respectfully request that Your Honor defer temporarily consideration of the motion of Mr.
Danberg’s firm, Connolly, Bove, Lodge and Hutz LLP ("CBLH"), to withdraw as counsel for
Plaintiff Jersey Shore Automation, Inc., for the following reasons.
On November 30, 2005, prior to CBLH’s motion, Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs duly
noticed the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Jersey Shore for yesterday, January 5, 2006. As counsel
for Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs, I served the deposition notice on both Messrs. Danberg
and Heisman by electronic mail on November 30. By a return email that same day, Mr. Heisman
acknowledged receipt of the email that had the notice of deposition attached. Following service
_ of the notice, I heard nothing Hom Mr. Heisman or Mr. Danberg regarding the deposition and so
expected it to proceed as noticed.
On receipt of a copy of Mr. Danberg’s January 4 email to Your Honor, I replied to Mr.
Danberg as follows: "Ed, If you hear something from the court that may affect tomorrow, please
let me know as soon as you do. Thanks, Harvey.” The word "tomorrow" referred to the Jersey
Shore deposition noticed for January 5.
On January 5, I and an assistant traveled to Wilmington for the Jersey Shore deposition (I
had an assistant because of the voluminous documents that I needed for and intended to use in
the deposition, including seven separate topic notebooks for the questioning). Without any prior

Case 1:04-cv-01416-JJF Document 66 Filed O1/O9/2006 Page 2 of 2
BIRCH, HORTON, BITTNER AND CHEROT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
The Honorable Joseph J. Faman, Jr.
United States District Judge
January 6, 2006
Page 2
indication, Jersey Shore did not appear for the deposition, either personally or through its
counsel, CBLH.
In a telephone call with Messrs. Danberg and Heisman after the scheduled start of the
deposition, both acknowledged receiving the deposition notice, yet neither had informed me that
they and their client would not appear. In that call Mr. Heisman did tell me, however, that Jersey
Shore did not have the resources to continue the litigation and might stipulate to a judgment. I
requested that Messrs. Danberg and/or Heisman inform Your Honor’s chambers so that the Court
would not relieve CBLH as counsel before CBLH and I could explore the stipulated judgment
prospect.
Because it appears that Your Honor has not been so informed, I wish to inform the Court
of yesterday’s development and request that Your Honor defer consideration of CBLH’s motion
to allow the parties to explore a stipulated judgment. If CBLH were to be relieved as counsel at
this point, the full burden (financial and procedural) of proceeding against an impecunious, pro
se Jersey Shore would fall on parties who have been diligent and on whom Jersey Shore already
has forced unreasonable and unnecessary expense. Also, counsel for both sides have a
conference call on January 9 with Judge Thynge that cannot go forward if CBLH is relieved as
counsel.
Accordingly, Defendants and Counter-Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Cotut defer
consideration of the CBLH motion. Should the Court wish to hear further on this issue, we
would be available at the Court’s convenience.
Respectfully,
BIRCH, HORTON, BITTNER AND CHEROT
/s/ Harvey A. Levin
Harvey A. Levin
cc: The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge (By facsimile)
James D. Heisman, Esquire (By electronic mail)
M. Edward Danberg, Esquire (By electronic mail)
Edmund D. Lyons, Jr., Esquire (By electronic mail)
c;xs0s9s6\4\cJ0946.Doc