Barker Capital LLC v. Rebus LLC
Barker Capital LLC v. Rebus LLC
2006 WL 247114 (Del. Super. Ct. 2006)
January 12, 2006
Johnston, Mary M., Judge
Summary
The Defendants failed to produce Electronically Stored Information until after the Court granted the motion to compel. The Court ordered the Plaintiff's counsel to submit an affidavit setting forth the fees and expenses incurred in connection with the depositions and motions to compel. The importance of the Electronically Stored Information was that it was not produced until after the close of discovery.
Note: This is an unpublished decision. Check your jurisdiction’s rules about citing unpublished decisions before citing this case to a court.
BARKER CAPITAL LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
REBUS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Mark A. Fox and Twinlab Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendants
v.
REBUS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Mark A. Fox and Twinlab Corporation, a Delaware corporation, Defendants
No. Civ.A. 04C-10-269MMJ
Superior Court of Delaware
January 12, 2006
Johnston, Mary M., Judge
ORDER
*1 This 12th day of January, 2006, the Court having considered Plaintiff's Motion to Compel and for Sanctions, and the Defendants' opposition thereto,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Motion is GRANTED.
2. Following consideration of Plaintiff's first motion to compel, the Court held that Defendants' interrogatories were “non-responsive, insufficient, and violative of Superior Court Civil Rule 33.” The Court ordered Defendants promptly to “provide complete and responsive answers” and to “produce all non-privileged documents responsive to Plaintiff's First Request for Production.” The Court expressly deferred any decision on attorneys' fees.
3. In response to Plaintiff's request for a Rule 30(b)(6) corporate designee to testify about specified topics, Defendant Mark Fox designated himself, but failed to adequately prepare himself to testify. Plaintiff filed its second motion to compel, seeking to compel the defendants to produce a proper Rule 30(b)(6) designee and again seeking an order compelling production of all responsive documents.
4. After hearing argument on the second motion to compel, the Court ruled that the defendants had failed to produce a properly-prepared Rule 30(b)(6) witness. Further, the Court observed that Defendants' witness had improperly asserted objections and repeatedly conducted himself inappropriately in the deposition. The Court found Defendant Fox to be “obstructionist,” “arrogant,” “rude at times,” “insolent,” “sarcastic,” and “condescending.”
5. After the Court granted Plaintiff's second motion to compel, Defendants produced for the first time certain corporate minutes and other documents. This production was after the close of discovery.
6. Defendants produced their general counsel, Richard Neuwirth, as a Rule 30(b)(6) witness. Mr. Neuwirth testified that, contrary to his affidavit previously filed on July 20, 2005, Defendants had failed to produce e-mails and other electronic documents from all available sources. Those documents finally were produced following oral argument on the cross-motions for summary judgment.
7. Within 15 days, Plaintiff's counsel shall submit an affidavit setting forth the fees and expenses incurred in connection with the depositions of defendants Mark Fox, Rebus LLC and Twin Lab Corporation, and the preparation and presentation of the three motions to compel.