Justices Uphold Denial of Fast-Track Appeal in Bid to Amend Order Limiting Use of Discovery
The Delaware Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to hear an expedited appeal of a Delaware Court of Chancery ruling that denied a defendant's attempt to modify a protective order so it could pursue fraud claims outside of the state.
January 18, 2018 at 03:57 PM
3 minute read
Delaware Supreme Court.
The Delaware Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to hear an expedited appeal of a Delaware Court of Chancery ruling that denied a defendant's attempt to modify a protective order so it could pursue fraud claims outside of the state.
In a four-page order, the high court upheld the denial of NCM Group Holdings' application for interlocutory appeal of a Nov. 1 bench ruling by Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III that blocked the company's request to amend a protective order limiting the use of sensitive discovery materials only to the Delaware litigation, stemming from a 2014 merger with demolition and environmental-remediation firm LVI Group Investments.
The move would have allowed NCM to take its appeal straight to Delaware's five justices, without having to wait on the resolution of competing claims in the Court of Chancery.
NCM said in court documents that discovery had turned up evidence of “pervasive and widespread” fraud by top LVI personnel, but it worried that jurisdictional issues would bar individual claims in Delaware. Instead, the company hoped to file suit in Illinois, before the statute of limitations could run there in April 2019.
The company argued that the protective order functioned as a de facto release for the alleged wrongdoers, and sought to file suit in Illinois using information it obtained through discovery in Delaware.
Last month, Glasscock conceded that the issue NCM cited was “not a frivolous” one, but he said the company had failed to meet the high bar for securing a fast-tracked appeal. The vice chancellor also rejected NCM's argument that his earlier ruling had touched on a matter of first impression regarding how the state handles motions to modify confidentiality orders.
Though the Delaware Supreme Court has never set a standard for evaluating the requests, Glasscock said a 2002 ruling from the high court embraced a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, known as Wolhar, which required a showing of “extraordinary circumstances” and “compelling need.”
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court endorsed Glasscock's reading of Wolhar and said that NCM should have anticipated the possibility that it would want to sue in Illinois.
With trial in the case set to begin April 30, the justices said the proceedings would likely wrap before the deadline for the statute of limitations. However, they also left open the door for a second application, in case of delays.
“If trial court proceedings are delayed, or appellate review cannot be completed in the normal case, then NCM can renew its application, or move to expedite an appeal, as the circumstances warrant,” said Justice Collins J. Seitz, writing for the court.
Justices Karen L. Valihura and James T. Vaughn Jr. also signed on to the order.
Attorneys from both sides were not immediately available to comment.
LVI is represented by Rudolf Koch and Matthew D. Perri of Richards, Layton & Finger.
NCM is represented by Richard D. Heins and Peter H. Kyle of Ashby & Geddes and Peter B. Ladig and Meghan A. Adams of Morris James.
The case is captioned LVI Group Investments v. NCM Group Holdings.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllEagle Pharma Founder Sues Company to Recoup Cost of SEC Investigation
2 minute readPrivate Equity Firm's Counsel to Del. Supreme Court: Forfeiture Provisions Present 'a Choice'
4 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250