Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—01324-JJF—LPS Document 110 Filed 10/14/2005 Page 1 of 2
Murphy Spadaro & Landon
ATTORNEYS
1011 CENTRE ROAD, SUITE 210
WILMINGTON. DELAWARE 19805
Pnorqc ao2.4?2.a10o 392-47*2-Slnl
*:0* 3O2—472—B135 j_sp_adaro@,iiisllawcpni
October 14,2005
BY ELECTRONIC FILING AND HAND DELIVERY
James W. Semple, Esq.
Morris James Hitchens & Williams LLP
222 Delaware Avenue, 10th Floor
P.O. Box 2306
Wilmington, DE 19899-2306
RE: Eames v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.
C.A. No.: 04-CV-1324KAJ
Dear Master Semple:
Consistent with Your Honor's instructions, I enclose copies of certain background
materials. They include:
· Class Action Complaint.
• Nationwide's opening brief in support of its motion to dismiss, with appendix.
· The Eames plaintiffs' answering brief in opposition to Nationwide's motion to dismiss,
with appendix.
• Nationwidc's reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss.
• May 31, 2005 letter from John Spadaro to Judge Jordan, seeking relief with respect to
thc Eames p]aintiffs‘ initial document requests.
• August 4, 2005 letter from Nicolas Skiles to Judge Jordan, responding to the Eames
plaintiffs' May 3l letter.
• Transcript of August 5, 2005 teleconference with the Court regarding the Eames
plaintiffs' application for reliefwith respect to their initial document requests.
• September 9, 2005 letter from John Spadaro to Judge Jordan, seeking further relief with
respect to the Eames p1aintiffs' initial document requests.
izssie

Case 1:04-cv—01324-JJF—LPS Document 110 Filed 10/14/2005 Page 2 of 2
James W. Semple, Esq.
October I4, 2005
Page 2
· September 12, 2005 letter t`rom Nicolas Skiles to Judge Jordan, responding to the
Eames plaintiffs* September 9 letter.
• Transcript of September I3, 2005 teleconference with the Court regarding the Eames
pIaintiffs' application for further relief with respect to their initial document requests.
· Stipulated Protective Order.1
I regret to report that the parties were unable to reach agreement on the contents of this
package. Specifically, the Eames plaintiffs agreed to every item that Nationwide proposed for
inclusion, but Nationwide objected to four items that the Eames plaintiffs proposed. Those tour
items are the parties' letters of May 31, August 4, September 9 and September I2, sent to Judge
Jordan in connection with the very discovery dispute that led to Your Honor's appointment.
In essence, these four letters are the Eames plaintiffs* discovery motions. They address
the same discovery that our imminent motion to compel will seek. They also provide essential
context for the arguments, rulings and other remarks set forth in the two hearing transcripts, and
for the dispute as a whole.
In our view, the SDM's review ofthe hearing transcripts and other materials will be much
more meaningful with the aid ofthese letters, and considerably less meaningful without them.
They contain the very record that brought us to this point. We therefore respectfully request that
the SDM consider them, along with the materials whose inclusion Nationwide proposed (and to
which we cheerfully agreed).
Finally, I note that in view ofthe volume ofpapcr involved (and the tact that much of it
duplicates existing docket entries), I have not uploaded the enclosures on the Court's electronic
docket. I hope that approach is acceptable.
I am available to address any questions regarding this matter at the SDM*s convenience.
Respectfully,
fsf John S. Spadaro
John S. Spadaro
J SS/slr
ce: Curtis P. Cheyney, III, Esq. (by electronic tiling)
‘ Though the Stipulated Protective Order bears no original signature, it was "so ordered" bythe
Court on October 4, 2005.
I24936