Free Statement - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:08-mc-00135-GMS

Document 14

Filed 08/26/2008

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE COMISIÓN EJECUTIVA HIDROELÉCTRICA DEL RÍO LEMPA, Plaintiff, v. NEJAPA POWER COMPANY, L.L.C., Defendant. § § § § § § § § § §

Action No. 1:08-MC-00135-GMS

RESPONSE TO NEJAPA POWER COMPANY, LLC'S REQUEST FOR ORAL ARGUMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 7.1.4 Plaintiff, Comisión Ejecutiva Hidroeléctrica del Río Lempa ("CEL"), respectfully opposes Defendant Nejapa Power Company, L.L.C's ("NPC") Request for Oral Argument Pursuant to Rule 7.1.4 filed August 19, 2008 (the "Request") on its Motion for Reconsideration of July 18, 2008 Order Granting Assistance to Litigant Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (the "Motion"). A motion for reconsideration is a motion for reargument and is governed by the same rules. See Rojas v. U.S., 2008 WL 687070 (D.N.J.) (attached as Exhibit A) (noting that "the terms reargument and reconsideration are used interchangeably"); In re Joy Global, Inc., 2008 WL 686650 (D. Del.) (attached as Exhibit B) (treating motions for reargument and reconsideration the same); State v. Brooks, 2008 WL 435085 (Del. Super.) (attached as Exhibit C) ("While Defendant filed this action under the title "Motion for Reconsideration" the Court will treat it as a Motion for Reargument because a motion for reconsideration is tantamount to a motion for reargument."). Therefore, NPC's Motion is governed by Local Rule 7.1.5.

Case 1:08-mc-00135-GMS

Document 14

Filed 08/26/2008

Page 2 of 2

Local Rule 7.1.5 states that a motion for reargument "shall briefly and succinctly state the grounds therefore...the opposing party may file a brief answer to each ground asserted in the motion. The Court will determine from the motion and answer whether reargument will be granted." (emphasis added). In this case, the Defendant NPC has already had the benefit of both an opening and reply brief, each filed without the leave of the Court. CEL has also filed an answer to the original Motion which it believes is sufficient. Defendant NPC has presented no reason to now, after multiple written submissions, deviate from this Court's Rules and normal practice of deciding motions for reargument on the papers. Therefore, CEL opposes NPC's Request and respectfully asks that it be denied. MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP /s/ Donald E. Reid (#1058) Donald E. Reid (#1058) 1201 N. Market Street P. O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899-1347 (302) 658-9200 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff OF COUNSEL: David M. Orta ARNOLD & PORTER LLP 555 Twelfth Street, NW Washington, DC 20004-1206 (202) 942-5667 [email protected]

2

Case 1:08-mc-00135-GMS

Document 14-2

Filed 08/26/2008

Page 1 of 10

Case 1:08-mc-00135-GMS

Document 14-2

Filed 08/26/2008

Page 2 of 10

Case 1:08-mc-00135-GMS

Document 14-2

Filed 08/26/2008

Page 3 of 10

Case 1:08-mc-00135-GMS

Document 14-2

Filed 08/26/2008

Page 4 of 10

Case 1:08-mc-00135-GMS

Document 14-2

Filed 08/26/2008

Page 5 of 10

Case 1:08-mc-00135-GMS

Document 14-2

Filed 08/26/2008

Page 6 of 10

Case 1:08-mc-00135-GMS

Document 14-2

Filed 08/26/2008

Page 7 of 10

Case 1:08-mc-00135-GMS

Document 14-2

Filed 08/26/2008

Page 8 of 10

Case 1:08-mc-00135-GMS

Document 14-2

Filed 08/26/2008

Page 9 of 10

Case 1:08-mc-00135-GMS

Document 14-2

Filed 08/26/2008

Page 10 of 10