John Solak v. Twitter, Inc.
This text of John Solak v. Twitter, Inc. (John Solak v. Twitter, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Chancery of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KATHALEEN ST. JUDE MCCORMICK LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER CHANCELLOR 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734
October 12, 2022
Blake A. Bennett, Esquire Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esquire Cooch and Taylor, P.A. Kevin M. Gallagher, Esquire The Nemours Building Matthew D. Perri, Esquire 1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120 Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. Wilmington, DE 19801 920 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: Solak v. Twitter, Inc. C.A. No. 2022-0491-KSJM
Dear Counsel:
Plaintiff John Solak (“Plaintiff”) filed the above-referenced action to compel
Defendant Twitter, Inc. (“Defendant”) to provide its books and records for inspection under
to 8 Del. C. § 220. Plaintiff filed his Complaint and Motion to Expedite on June 7, 2022.1
Plaintiff and Defendant then entered into a series of stipulations extending Defendant’s
time to respond to the Complaint.2 The most recent of these stipulations, which I granted
on August 11, provides that Defendant “shall not be required to respond to the Complaint
until a date to be mutually agreed upon by the parties or ordered by the Court.”3
The parties failed to agree to a date to respond to the Complaint or a schedule for
litigating this action. In a status letter submitted to the court on September 28, 2022,
1 C.A. No. 2022-0491-KSJM, Docket (“Dkt.”) 1. 2 Dkt. 7, 9, 11. 3 Dkt. 11. C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM October 12, 2022 Page 2 of 2
however, Plaintiff states that Defendant has failed to respond to Plaintiff’s scheduling
proposals.4 Plaintiff requests that I issue an order requiring Defendant to respond to the
Complaint and Motion to Expedite.5
Plaintiff’s request is granted. Defendant is hereby ordered to respond to Plaintiff’s
Complaint and Motion to Expedite no later than 5 p.m., October 26, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Sincerely,
/s/ Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick
Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick Chancellor
cc: All counsel of record (by File & ServeXpress)
4 Dkt. 12. 5 Id.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
John Solak v. Twitter, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-solak-v-twitter-inc-delch-2022.