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.

Greenspan v. News Corp.

Court of Chancery of Delaware

June 8, 2015

BRAD D. GREENSPAN, Plaintiff,
v.
NEWS CORPORATION, et al.

Submitted: June 5, 2015

Dear Mr. Greenspan and Counsel:

I have Mr. Greenspan's Motion "For Relief Under Rule 59(1), 60(a), 60(b)(1), 60(b)(2), 60(b)(5), 60(b)(6)." This Motion refers to my oral ruling of May 28, 2015, which Mr. Greenspan characterizes as ''allow[ing] Defendants to proceed to brief the Motion to Dismiss terminating the litigation while eliminating all the pending motions that Plaintiff has filed and which the Supreme Court ruled 'pending' in its April 13, 2015 ruling." As I understand Mr. Greenspan's Motion, it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of my oral ruling of May 28. Mr. Greenspan apparently labors under the misconception that I will not consider his Motion to Disqualify filed on March 24, 2015. However, pursuant to my oral ruling, Mr. Greenspan's Motion to Disqualify is to be briefed together with the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, and I will hear both motions and oral argument thereon at the same time.

Mr. Greenspan also apparently seeks reconsideration of my denial of his Exceptions to Master Legrow's Final Report dated April 2, 2015. I remain baffled by those Exceptions, which I denied in a Letter Order on May 8, 2015. The Master's Final Report involved Mr. Greenspan's Motion for Recusal, which the Master granted in the Final Report. As a result, this matter was reassigned to me for all purposes. It appears that Mr. Greenspan meant to take exception to a scheduling order referenced in the Master's Final Report, although his Exceptions did not so state. If that is the case, his Exceptions are moot, since I extended the time within which he was permitted to respond to certain outstanding motions made by the Defendants, beyond the time permitted by the Master's scheduling order. In any event, to the extent Mr. Greenspan seeks relief from my Letter Order of May 8, 2015, that request is untimely.

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Greenspan's Motion for Relief "Under Rule 59(1), 60(a), 60(b)(1), 60(b)(2), 60(b)(5), 60(b)(6)" is DENIED. To the extent that the foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Mr. Greenspan has also sought certification of an interlocutory appeal of the rulings in my letter dated April 29, 2015. I have attached an order denying that request.

Sam Glasscock III Vice Chancellor

ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM INTERLOCUTORY ORDER

This 8th day of June 2015, the Plaintiff having made application under Rule 42 of the Supreme Court for an order certifying an appeal from the interlocutory order of this Court, dated April 29, 2015; and the Court having found that such order fails to decide a substantial issue of material importance that merits appellate review before a final judgment, that none of the criteria of Rule 42(b)(iii) apply, that Plaintiff has failed to include in the application for interlocutory review a statement that the applicant has determined in good faith that the application meets the criteria set forth, as required by Rule 42(b)(iii), and that the application is untimely; IT IS ORDERED that with respect to this Court's Order of April 29, 2015, the Plaintiffs request for certification of an interlocutory appeal is DENIED.


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.