Matthew v. Laudamiel

Opinion

EFiled: Oct 03 2014 12:34PM EDT Transaction ID 56128155 Case No. 5957-VCN COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JOHN W. NOBLE 417 SOUTH STATE STREET VICE CHANCELLOR DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 TELEPHONE: (302) 739-4397 FACSIMILE: (302) 739-6179

October 3, 2014

Thad J. Bracegirdle, Esquire Seth J. Reidenberg, Esquire Wilks, Lukoff & Bracegirdle, LLC Tybout, Redfearn & Pell 1300 North Grant Avenue, Suite 100 750 Shipyard Drive, Suite 400 Wilmington, DE 19806 Wilmington, DE 19801

Mr. Christophe Laudamiel DreamAir LLC 313 West 19th Street, Apt. 32 c/o Christophe Laudamiel, President New York, NY 10011 210 11th Avenue, Suite 1002 cl@leschristophs.com New York, NY 10001 cl@dreamair.mobi

Paul D. Brown, Esquire Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP 1007 North Orange Street, Suite 1110 Wilmington, DE 19801

Re: Matthew v. Laudamiel, et al. C.A. No. 5957-VCN Date Submitted: September 9, 2014

Dear Mr. Laudamiel and Counsel:

Plaintiff Stewart Matthew has moved for reargument of that portion of the

Court’s Letter Opinion and Order of July 21, 2014,1 that granted Fläkt Woods

1 Matthew v. Laudamiel, 2014 WL 3586594 (Del. Ch. July 21, 2014). Matthew v. Laudamiel, et al. C.A. No. 5957-VCN October 3, 2014 Page 2

Group S.A.’s (“Fläkt Woods”) motion to compel discovery into Plaintiff’s scenting

activities after dissolution of Aeosphere. That requires the Court to consider

whether its decision was influenced by a misunderstanding of material fact or a

misapplication of law.2 The Court did not misunderstand Plaintiff’s claims or, in a

material way, how he wanted to define the scope of discovery. Instead, the

question was the scope of discovery to which Fläkt Woods is entitled. 3 The

Court’s conclusion was driven by the liberal standard for discovery. It may be that

the discovery will not be useful, but that is not a conclusion that the Court can now

draw.

The Plaintiff’s concerns with the Court’s application of law involved

mitigation. Again, the information sought may not be especially probative, but,

especially at the discovery stage, the scope must be allowed to acknowledge that

similar substitute employment or compensation arrangements—i.e., not just those

that are identical—may be an appropriate measure.4

2 See, e.g., Salgado v. Mobile Servs. Int’l, LLC, 2012 WL 2903970, at *1 (Del. Ch. July 11, 2012). 3 It is not clear why Fläkt Woods’ discovery should be restricted by reference to Mr. Laudamiel’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Verified Complaint. 4 The necessary flexibility here makes drawing rigid lines difficult. Matthew v. Laudamiel, et al. C.A. No. 5957-VCN October 3, 2014 Page 3

Accordingly, the Motion for Reargument is denied.5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

/s/ John W. Noble

JWN/cap cc: Register in Chancery-K

5 It may be that Plaintiff will not value his subsequent employment efforts, but this does not necessarily preclude Fläkt Woods from using this information to show an offset or otherwise to rebut Plaintiff’s analysis.