Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01394-GMS Dccumentja)4 Filed 1 1/O2/2005 Page 1 of 2
/;<;‘i-%£.?;\
II__fi1.\{/I I Q \¤
M. J.-we Bl•‘AD'a` ‘,, in A)
.-\TTORNEi‘ GENEML 'x_Ll‘._' **
Yesjfaxff
STATE OF DELAWARE
DEPARTMENT or JUSTICE
NEW CASTLE COUNTY KENT COUNTY SUSSEX COUNTY
Carvel State Building 102 West Water Street 114 E. Market Street
820 French Street Dover, DE I990l Georgetown, DE 19947
Wilmington, DE 19801 Criminal Division (302) 739-4211 {302) 856-5352
Criminal Division {302) 577-8500 Fax: {302} 739-6727 Fax: (302) 856-5369
Fax: {302) 577-2496 Civil Division (302) 739-7641 TTY: (302) 856-4698
Cavii Division {302} $11-8400 Fax; (302] 7.39-1*652
Fai; (302) 577-6630 TTY: (302) 739-1545
TTY: (302) sv?-5783
PLEASE REPLY TO:
New Castle County Writer’s Direct Dial: (302) 577-8510
FAX: (302) 577-5866
November 2, 2005
Hon. Gregory M. Sleet
United States District Court
Lock Box 19
844 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Conley v. Delaware State Police, et al.
Civ. A. N0. 04-1394-GMS
Dear Judge Sleet:
Yesterday afternoon, the lawyers for the plaintiff in this case electronically tiled a letter under
seal with the Court. We received notification of the filing at 2:33 p.m. by an electronic message
from the Court. However, the redacted version ofthe letter we could access online had no text.
The letter stated that it had been copied to opposing counsel "via E-mail and U.S. Mail.” We did
not receive any such copy in conjunction with the tiling.
At 4:06 p.m. yesterday, Ms. Ballard sent an e-mail to both Thomas and Stephen Neuberger,
advising that she had not received a copy ofthe letter, and requesting that the unredacted version
be forwarded by the end of the business day. She received no response to her messages.
This morning, there is no e-mail message with an unredacted copy of the letter, nor has a "hard
copy" been received. At this point, we have no idea as to the subject matter of the letter. Nor do
we have any clue as to why the letter would have been sealed by counsel.

Case 1:04-cv-O1394—Gl\/IS Document 104 Filed 11/O2/2005 Page 2 of 2
It is troubling that the plaintiff lawyers have filed a sealed letter with the Court, and have failed
to provide defense counsel with an unredacted version containing the text of the letter. This is
contrary to plaintiff counsel’s own representations to the Court, and in violation of Rule 5
regarding service of such papers. In effect, this is an ex parte application to the Court. Our
clients are obviously prejudiced unfairly by the failure of plaintiff" s lawyers to disclose the nature
of their communication with the Court.
We respectfully ask the Court to defer any action on the plaintiffs letter, until such time as
defense counsel have had an opportunity to review it. We would further ask that the Court
instruct plaintiffs lawyers to immediately provide defense counsel with an unredacted version of
the letter containing the full text provided to the Court. We would defer to the Court as to what
sanctions or other remedy would be appropriate to deal with this conduct.
Respectfully submitted,
Q ( "
ogy!} ’
Ralph K. Dur ein HI
Stephani J. Ballard
Deputy Attorneys General
xc: Thomas S. Neuberger, Esq.
James E. Ligouri, Esq.