Base Optics Inc. v. Yaping Liu

Opinion

COURT OF CHANCERY

OF THE

SAM GLASSCOCK III STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE VICE CHANCELLOR 34 THE CIRCLE GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

August 4, 2014

Joanne P. Pinckney Evan O. Williford Seton C. Mangine The Williford Firm LLC Pinckney, Weidinger, Urban & Joyce LLC 901 North Market Street, Suite 800 1220 North Market Street, Suite 950 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Yaping Liu

203 Hockessin Circle

Hockessin, Delaware 19707

Re: Base Optics Inc. v. Yaping Liu et al., Civil Action No. 9803-VCG

Dear Counsel and Ms. Liu, This letter memorializes my bench ruling at today’s teleconference, in which I addressed Mr. Williford’s Motion to Withdraw as counsel for Defendants Yaping Liu and Argus International Ltd. For the reasons stated in my bench ruling, I granted in part and denied in part this Motion.

More specifically, I granted Mr. Williford’s Motion to Withdraw as counsel for the Individual Defendant, Ms. Liu, and denied the Motion as to Argus International Ltd. I further relieved Argus of its responsibility to file an answering brief, and from its obligation to make discovery, separate from the Individual Defendant, Ms. Liu. Argus, however, must be represented at the preliminary injunction hearing scheduled in Dover, Delaware on Tuesday, August 12, 2014 at

2

10:00 am. My ruling, moreover, does not relieve The Williford Firm from zealously representing Argus.1 If appropriate, Mr. Williford may renew his Motion to Withdraw orally at the conclusion of next week’s preliminary injunction hearing.

To the extent the foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sincerely,

/s/ Sam Glasscock III

Sam Glasscock III

1 See, e.g., Del. Lawyers’ R. Prof’l Conduct 1.3 (“A lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness in representing a client.”).