Submitted: June 20, 2013
On Defendant's Appeal from the Commissioner's Report and Recommendation.
David J. Baldwin, Esquire and John A. Sensing, Esquire, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, and William G. Passannante, Esquire and Alexander D. Hardiman, Esquire, Anderson Kill & Olick, P.C., New York, New York, Attorneys for Plaintiffs.
John D. Balaguer, Esquire and Timothy S. Martin, Esquire, White and Williams, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware, and Michael S. Loeffler, Esquire, Loeffler Thomas P.C., Northbrook, Illinois, Attorneys for Defendant.
RICHARD R.COOCH, R.J.
This 25th day of July, 2013, on consideration of New Hampshire's Exceptions to the Orders of Commissioner Parker dated May 30, 2013 granting HLTH's Motion for Threshold Determination and Motion for Protective Order and Denying in Part New Hampshire's Motion to Compel, it appears to the Court, pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 512 and Super. Ct. Civ. R. 132, that:
1. Commissioner Parker's May 30, 2013 rulings were proper and non-dispositive. The Commissioner correctly found that all director and officer defendants in the underlying criminal action were successful on the merits or otherwise pursuant to 8 Del. C. § 145(c).
2. As correctly found by Commissioner Parker, discovery on corporate indemnification matters is prohibited. Discovery is limited to the issue of reasonableness of attorneys' fees and costs.
3. Because New Hampshire failed to object to the referral of the matter to Commissioner Parker at any time prior to the filing of its Exceptions, it has forfeited its right to take such exception to the power of the Commissioner to make such a ruling.
NOW THEREFORE, because Commissioner Parker's rulings were proper and correct, Defendant's Exceptions to the ...