Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Greenspan v. News Corp.

Court of Chancery of Delaware, New Castle

April 2, 2015

Greenspan
v.
News Corporation, et al.

Submitted: March 24, 2015

Brad Greenspan

Gregory V. Varallo, Esquire Kevin M. Gallagher, Esquire Christopher H. Lyons, Esquire Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.

Kevin M. Coen, Esquire Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP

Kathaleen St. J. McCormick, Esquire Daniel M. Kirshenbaum, Esquire Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor

A. Thompson Bayliss, Esquire Abrams & Bayliss LLP

Daniel B. Rath, Esquire Rebecca L. Butcher, Esquire Tyler O'Connell, Esquire Landis Rath & Cobb

Dear Counsel and Mr. Greenspan:

I am in receipt of Mr. Coen's letter dated March 24, 2015 and Mr. Greenspan's numerous filings, which include a motion asking me to recuse myself from these proceedings (the "Motion to Recuse"). This letter constitutes my resolution of Mr. Coen's request for a scheduling order and also constitutes my final report on the Motion to Recuse.

First, I have signed the proposed scheduling order requiring Mr. Greenspan to respond to the Advancement Defendants' motions to dismiss. The motions to dismiss were filed in January and Mr. Greenspan has had more than enough time to respond to those motions. If Mr. Greenspan opposes the motions to dismiss, he should file his opposition on or before April 21, 2015.

Second, I have reviewed the Motion to Recuse, along with the Motion of Joinder, the Motion to Supplement Pleadings, and the Delaware Judges' Code of Judicial Conduct (the "Code of Conduct").[1] In the Motion to Recuse, Mr. Greenspan appears to argue that my past association with Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP ("Potter Anderson") represents a conflict of interest because Potter Anderson represented Answers Corporation ("Answers") in a previous case pending before Vice Chancellor Noble and Mr. Greenspan alleges Answers and Potter Anderson made false statements about Mr. Greenspan in that litigation and in certain public filings. Although Potter Anderson and Answers are not presently parties to this action, Mr. Greenspan has filed a Motion of Joinder and a Motion to Supplement Pleadings that – collectively – seek to add Answers, Potter Anderson, and several Potter Anderson attorneys as defendants to this action, along with several other firms and individual attorneys.

I have not granted the Motion of Joinder or the Motion to Supplement Pleadings, and Potter Anderson, Answers, and any Potter Anderson attorneys have yet been served with process in this action. I believe, however, it is proper to resolve the Motion to Recuse with the proposed amended pleadings in mind, as the motions seeking to add those additional defendants shortly will need to be resolved and the conflict on which Mr. Greenspan relies arguably would by implicated in the Court's consideration of those motions. After reviewing the matter, and with an interest toward erring on the side of caution, I have decided to recuse myself from this case and ask the Chancellor to reassign the matter to another judicial officer.

The Motion to Recuse is governed by Rule 2.11(A) of the Code of Conduct. Under that Rule, a judge should recuse herself:

in a proceeding in which the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned, including but not ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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