ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Litigation Blogs -> Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Litigation

: Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog

Court Grants Motion to Compel Director Emails After Company Fails to Preserve or Collect That Information

By Francis G. X. Pileggi, Esq.

ADVERTISEMENTS

 Grace Brothers, Ltd. v. Siena Holdings, Inc., et al., No. 184-CC (Del. Ch., June 2, 2009), read letter decision here.

Kevin Brady, a highly respected Delaware litigator, provides us with the benefit of his following review of this letter decision.

On June 2, 2009, Chancellor Chandler in granted plaintiff's motion to compel emails among defendants directors on an expedited basis. This action was filed in January 2004 by Grace Brothers challenging a reverse stock split by Siena as a violation of 8 Del. C. § 155. Grace Brothers asked Sienna to produce emails among members of Siena's board of directors and Sienna not only refused to produce the emails, it said that 'there was no need for the board of directors to search for the emails.' Sienna not only failed to identify or locate this information, it failed to preserve this information and it failed to meet its burden of showing that Grace's document requests were improper or 'unreasonably cumulative or duplicative.'

Siena argued that it didn't have to collect and produce the directors' email because the company had already produced the relevant emails when they produced the sender-side versions. Additionally, Siena argued that 'its process of asking the directors about their document retention and email communication practices was sufficiently reasonable to determine if the directors had unique copies of any emails already produced from other sources. It concluded that the directors did not have any unique copies.'

The Court disagreed with Siena's position and found that this request would not: (i) be overly burdensome; (ii) result in great expense for Siena; (iii) be duplicative; and (iv) harass Siena. The Court granted the motion to compel this production in an expedited fashion given the impending June 15 trial date.


 

Full post as published by Delaware Corporate and Commercial Litigation Blog on June 03, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Related Law Articles

Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0021 secs (from cache 11/02/26 23:44:02)