KDM Development Corp. v. The Consumer Protection Unit of the Dept. of Justice for the State of Delaware

• Court: Court of Chancery of Delaware
• Decided: June 22, 2023
• Docket: CA No. 2023-0438-SG
• Status: Published

Opinion

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

Date Submitted: June 22, 2023 Date Decided: June 22, 2023

John W. Paradee, Esquire Ryan T. Costa, Esquire Brian V. DeMott, Esquire State of Delaware Department of Justice J. Garrett Miller, Esquire 820 N. French Street 6 South State Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Dover, DE 19901

Re: KDM Development Corp. v. The Consumer Protection Unit of the Department of Justice for the State of Delaware, C.A. No. 2023-0438-SG

Dear Counsel:

Petitioner seeks to quash a subpoena under both Rule 45(c)(3) of this Court

and 6 Del. C. §§ 2514-17.1 However, the rule and statute referenced contemplate a

subpoena authorized by a court, which is not the case here.2 This Court therefore

lacks statutory jurisdiction over the matter. Because Petitioner is free to seek

identical relief at law, traditional equitable jurisdiction is also lacking.

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed without prejudice with the

understanding that a similar filing will be made in Superior Court.

1 See Verified Pet. Seeking to Quash Subpoenas and the Issuance of a Protective Order, Dkt. No. 1. 2 Per Respondent, the subpoena in question was authorized by the Department of Justice itself pursuant to 29 Del. C. §§ 2504(4) and 2508(a). Opp. of the Delaware Department of Justice to Pet. Seeking to Quash Subpoenas and the Issuance of a Protective Order ¶ 6, Dkt. No. 6. Because I find that I am without equitable jurisdiction, I do not reach the merits of the case. To the extent the foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO

ORDERED.

Sincerely,

/s/ Sam Glasscock III Vice Chancellor