Bako Pathology LP v. Bakotic

• Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware
• Decided: January 7, 2019
• Docket: CA 2018-0520-JRS
• Status: Published

Opinion

COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

417 S. State Street JOSEPH R. SLIGHTS III Dover, Delaware 19901 VICE CHANCELLOR Telephone: (302) 739-4397 Facsimile: (302) 739-6179

January 7, 2019

Adam W. Poff, Esquire Bruce W. McCullough, Esquire Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP Bodell Bove, LLC 1000 North King Street 1225 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Wilmington, DE 19801

Re: Bako Pathology LP, et al. v. Bakotic, et al. C.A. No. 2018-0520-JRS

Dear Counsel:

I have reviewed the submissions in connection with Defendants’ Motion for

Order Compelling Discovery, for Sanctions and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs of

Litigation (the “Motion to Compel”) (DI 152), and Plaintiffs’ Motion for Protective

Order (DI 147) (together, the “Motions”). For reasons I will explain on the record

at the outset of the January 23, 2019 hearing, both Motions are denied.

Suffice it to say for now, the Motion to Compel follows Defendants’ imprecise

approach to expedited discovery, where no meaningful effort was made to work with

Plaintiffs’ counsel to identify specific records custodians or to focus searches for the Adam W. Poff, Esquire Bruce W. McCullough, Esquire January 7, 2019 Page 2

collection of documents. This lack of precision left Plaintiffs to do their best to

discern what Defendants were looking for in the document production. Plaintiffs

have represented that they have produced all responsive documents that exist and

Defendants have failed to identify what specifically is missing from that production.

For these reasons, the Motion to Compel is DENIED.

As for the Motion for Protective Order, Defendants served the Notice of

Deposition for Lois Adams following Plaintiffs’ filing of an affidavit from

Ms. Adams just prior to the expedited discovery cut-off. While Defendants, perhaps,

could have moved more quickly in seeking Ms. Adams’s deposition, I am satisfied

they moved quickly enough and that Ms. Adams’s deposition should be taken prior

to the January 23 hearing. To the extent Defendants believe that Ms. Adams’s

deposition yields evidence relevant to the matters to be addressed at the January 23

hearing, they may lodge the deposition transcript with the Court in advance of the

hearing. For these reasons, the Motion for Protective Order is DENIED.

Neither party shall be entitled to fees or costs in connection with these

Motions. Adam W. Poff, Esquire Bruce W. McCullough, Esquire January 7, 2019 Page 3

Given these rulings, the telephonic hearing on the Motions scheduled for

January 11, 2019, at 11:00, is no longer necessary and is hereby cancelled.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Joseph R. Slights III