Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 143.3 kB
Pages: 2
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 508 Words, 3,248 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/40288/24.pdf

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 143.3 kB)


Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:08-cv-00313-SLR

Document 24

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 1 of 2

STEVENS & LEE
LAWYERS & CONSULTANTS
1105 North Market Street 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 (302) 654-5180 Fax (302) 654-5181 www.stevenslee.com Direct Dial: (302) 425-3308 Email: [email protected] Direct Fax: (610) 371-8515

July 11, 2008 Via Hand Delivery: The Honorable Sue L. Robinson United States District Court 844 N. King Street, Lock Box 31 Wilmington, DE 19801 Re: BEPCO, L. P. v. 15375 Memorial Corporation, et al., C. A. No. 08-313 (SLR)

Dear Judge Robinson: This firm is counsel to the Debtors, 15375 Memorial Corporation and Santa Fe Minerals, Inc., which are appellees and cross-appellants in this appeal (the "Debtors"). We write, jointly for the Debtors and, with permission by their counsel, for the other parties to this appeal, GlobalSantaFe Corporation, Entities Holding, Inc., and GlobalSantaFe Corporate Services, Inc. (the "GSF Entities"), in response to Mr. Werkheiser's letter of this date on behalf of BEPCO, L. P. ("BEPCO"). We are mindful of the Court's stated policy regarding letter communications, but feel we must write to advise of our position with respect to Mr. Werkheiser's letter, because such was not simply delivered to Chambers but was filed with the Court [see Docket No. 23], and, at least for now, has been made a part of the Court's record in this appeal, and also because this is now the second time, in our view, that BEPCO has ignored the Court's policy regarding letter communications [see Docket No. 21]. Debtors and the GSF Entities submit that Mr. Werkheiser's letter is an improper communication with the Court because it is, in essence, a "disguised supplemental memorandum" containing argument with respect to BEPCO's pending motion to avoid mediation [see Docket No. 14]. BEPCO already has filed a reply in connection with that motion [see Docket No. 19]; and, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1.2(b), "no additional papers are to be filed

Philadelphia · Reading · Valley Forge · Lehigh Valley · Harrisburg · Lancaster · Scranton Williamsport · Wilkes-Barre · Princeton · Cherry Hill · New York · Wilmington

A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
SL1 832086v1/000000.00000

Case 1:08-cv-00313-SLR

Document 24

Filed 07/11/2008

Page 2 of 2

STEVENS & LEE
LAWYERS & CONSULTANTS
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson July 11, 2008 Page 2 absent Court approval." In addition, Mr. Werkheiser's letter both (i) attempts, inappropriately, to supplement the record in this appeal (Debtors and the other parties to this appeal have objected to BEPCO's pending motion to supplement the appeal record [see Docket Nos. 16 and 18]), and (ii) addresses issues in a public filing ­ in connection with mediation ­ that are to be kept private between the parties to the mediation. Accordingly, Debtors submit that Mr. Werkheiser's letter should be disregarded and should be removed from the Court's record in this appeal. Respectfully, STEVENS & LEE, P. C. /s/ John D. Demmy John D. Demmy cc: Gregory W. Werkheiser, Esquire David Buchbinder, Esquire Kevin F. Brady, Esquire Francis A. Monaco, Jr., Esquire Philip G. Eisenberg, Esquire M. Hampton Carver, Esquire Leann Opotowsky Moses, Esquire (All via electronic mail)

SL1 832086v1/000000.00000