Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 47.2 kB
Pages: 1
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 351 Words, 2,245 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/40457/11.pdf

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 47.2 kB)


Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:08-cv-00391-SLR Document 11 Filed O9/O3/2008 Page 1 of 1
Potter
N Anderson
L COITOOH UP Sarah E. DiLuzi0
Attorney at Law
;§}j,§;·;;g1Me*<*‘* me §%$“3‘§£%%°$E»°’E‘l?f§F%'l§§$“
Wilmington. DE 19899-0951 302 6584192 Fax
302 98* dm September 3, 2008
vswvw.pollcrandcrson.com
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
U.S. District Court of Delaware
844 N. King Street, Lock Box 31
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Gregorovich v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., et. al.,
C.A. No. 08-391 (SLR)
Dear Judge Robinson:
On behalf of the Defendants in the above-referenced action, I write to address the
timeliness of Defendants’ Reply Brief in further support of their motion to dismiss, which was
electronically filed with the Court today. According to the docket, Plaintiff" s answering brief
was filed with the Court on July 30, 2008. Defendants did not, however, receive electronic
notice of that filing from the CM/ECF system.
Compounding the lack of electronic notification, Defendants did not receive the hard
copy of Plaintiff s answering brief from the United States Post Office until August 25, 2008.
Although Plaintiff served the document via registered mail on July 30, 2008, the post office
simply did not deliver it for several weeks. Upon receipt, the undersigned contacted the post
office and was informed that they have no explanation for the delay in delivery. Their records
simply show that Plaintiff posted it on July 30 and it was delivered on August 25. Given this
unfortunate turn of events, Defendants were not aware that Plaintiff had filed an answering brief
until August 25. Their reply brief was prepared and filed promptly thereafter, within the time
constraints of Local Rule 7.1.2. Defendants thus respectfully request that the Court consider the
arguments set forth in their reply brief when deciding their motion to dismiss.
Counsel for Defendants are available at the Court’s convenience should Your Honor have
any questions.
Re pectfully submitted,
A ..··> _ 4 A ·*\\

Sarah E. DiLuzio (#4085) f
cc: Basil Gregorovich (By Federal Express)

Case 1:08-cv-00391-SLR

Document 11

Filed 09/03/2008

Page 1 of 1