Litigation

Chancery Rejects Objections to Motion for Commission

By Francis G.X. Pileggi

Judy v. Preferred Communications Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 4662-CC (Del. Ch. June 11, 2010), read letter decision here. This short 2-page letter decision is notable for two reasons:

First, it is useful for anyone attempting to object to a motion for the issuance of commissions. In this instance, an objection was made to such a motion which was filed in an effort to take the deposition of an attorney. The Court ruled that the objection, which was based on a claim of privilege, was not supported by a detailed privilege log, but even if it were, the court rejected the objection, reasoning that: 'good cause exists for requiring [the information] to be disclosed.' (citations omitted.)

Second, the Court granted a Motion to Compel and ordered the attorneys' fees of the prevailing party to be paid pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 37(a)(4). This decision serves as an example of the 'not uncommon practice' of the Court of Chancery granting attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in connection with a Motion to Compel.

Full post as published by Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog on June 15, 2010 (boomark / email).