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.
The court further noted in the 2022 opinion that inspection in a Section 220 action is "frequently limited to board-level documents that formally evidence the directors' deliberations and decisions," and that the parties had not addressed whether the petitioners "already received the documents that they would have received in a Section 220 action." That issue—whether the company had already produced all documents that Section 220 required and what additional discovery the petitioners were entitled to—was left open, and was now before the court by way of a motion filed by the company seeking protection against a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition.
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
© 2025 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 AllChancery: Common Stock Worthless in 'Jacobson v. Akademos' and Transaction Was Entirely Fair
5 minute readThe Importance of Contractual Language in Analyzing Post-Closing Earnout Disputes
6 minute readDelaware 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 readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1We the People?
- 2New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 3No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 4Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 5Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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