Court of Chancery Allows 30(B)(6) Depositions as a Tool in Section 220 Discovery
Discovery in a Delaware books and records action involves striking a balance between the right of the parties to prepare for trial and the statutory…
April 05, 2023 at 09:01 AM
9 minute read
ContributorsDiscovery in a Delaware books and records action involves striking a balance between the right of the parties to prepare for trial and the statutory mandate to afford a summary treatment of relief. Striking such a balance in practice can be exceedingly difficult, and oftentimes, results in litigants burdening the court with motion practice. In Wei v. Zoox, C.A. No. 2020-1036-KSJM (Del. Ch. Jan. 17, 2023), Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick addressed the use and appropriate parameters for a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition as a tool in connection with Section 220 discovery. Petitioners in Zoox are stockholders that dissented from respondent Zoox, Inc.'s acquisition by Amazon, Inc. They served a books and records demand on the company that was refused, but the transaction closed before they could file an action to enforce the demand. Instead, they filed an appraisal action and sought discovery equivalent to what they had requested in their books and records demand. Zoox produced "formal board materials," but resisted further discovery and moved for a protective order. In a previous decision, Wei v. Zoox, 268 A.3d 1207 (Del. Ch. Jan. 31, 2022), Chancellor McCormick noted that generally, a plaintiff may not file a lawsuit and seek discovery for the sole purpose of investigating claims to pursue in future lawsuits except through a Section 220 action. However, exercising the court's broad discretion over the discovery process, the chancellor held that because the petitioners were prevented from obtaining inspection of books and records through no fault of their own and had filed the appraisal action to investigate pre-suit potential breach of fiduciary duty claims, they would be entitled to discovery equivalent to a Section 220 inspection. The court was careful to note that because the scope of discovery in appraisal proceedings is broader than under Section 220, stockholders should not be encouraged to use appraisal actions as a more attractive alternative for pre-suit information-gathering. In other words, where an appraisal proceeding is pursued because the Section 220 path is blocked, stockholders could use appraisal proceedings solely to gather the information that they would have been permitted to obtain under Section 220, had books and records discovery been available.
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 AllDelaware Supreme Court Upholds Court of Chancery’s Refusal to Blue Pencil an Unreasonable Covenant Not to Compete
4 minute readChancery Stays Action Pending Resolution of a Motion to Dismiss in a First-Filed Action to Which the Defendant Is Not a Party
5 minute readChancery Court Exercises Discretion in Setting Bond in a Case Involving Share Transfer Restriction
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending 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