Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Matthew v. Laudamiel

Court of Chancery of Delaware

October 3, 2014

Matthew
v.
Laudamiel, et al.

Submitted: September 9, 2014

Dear Mr. Laudamiel and Counsel:

Plaintiff Stewart Matthew has moved for reargument of that portion of the Court's Letter Opinion and Order of July 21, 2014, [1] that granted Fläkt Woods Group S.A.'s ("Fläkt Woods") motion to compel discovery into Plaintiff's scenting activities after dissolution of Aeosphere. That requires the Court to consider whether its decision was influenced by a misunderstanding of material fact or a misapplication of law.[2] The Court did not misunderstand Plaintiff's claims or, in a material way, how he wanted to define the scope of discovery. Instead, the question was the scope of discovery to which Fläkt Woods is entitled.[3] The Court's conclusion was driven by the liberal standard for discovery. It may be that the discovery will not be useful, but that is not a conclusion that the Court can now draw.

The Plaintiff's concerns with the Court's application of law involved mitigation. Again, the information sought may not be especially probative, but, especially at the discovery stage, the scope must be allowed to acknowledge that similar substitute employment or compensation arrangements—i.e., not just those that are identical—may be an appropriate measure.[4]

Accordingly, the Motion for Reargument is denied.[5]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

JOHN W. NOBLE VICE CHANCELLOR


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.