Stimwave Technologies Incorporated v. Laura Tyler Perryman
This text of Stimwave Technologies Incorporated v. Laura Tyler Perryman (Stimwave Technologies Incorporated v. Laura Tyler Perryman) 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 SAM GLASSCOCK III VICE CHANCELLOR STATE OF DELAWARE COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE 34 THE CIRCLE GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947
July 7, 2022
Richard P. Rollo, Esq. Ms. Laura Tyler Perryman Kevin M. Gallagher, Esq. 1521 Alton Rd., Suite 417 Travis S. Hunter, Esq. Miami Beach, FL 33139 Nicole M. Henry, Esq. Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. One Rodney Square 920 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801
RE: Stimwave Technologies Incorporated v. Laura Tyler Perryman, et al., C.A. No. 2019-1003-SG
Dear Counsel and Ms. Perryman:
The Court is in receipt of Ms. Perryman’s letter, dated June 30, 2022, 1 which
advises that in Ms. Perryman’s view “[t]here exists no confirmation of . . . claims”
that any government agency, including the Department of Justice, might bring
against Ms. Perryman individually. That letter requests that I lift the stay currently
in place in this case as a result.
1 Dkt. No. 503. The stay was originally put in place following briefing on Plaintiff
Stimwave’s Motion to Stay or for Adverse Inference, filed March 15, 2022.2 The
Plaintiff’s papers in support of that motion indicated a concern that Ms. Perryman
might refuse to answer questions posed at deposition based on her Fifth Amendment
rights.3
In light of Ms. Perryman’s letter dated June 30, 2022, I assume that she will
not assert her Fifth Amendment rights and refuse to answer questions in connection
with any deposition in this action. If Ms. Perryman does invoke her Fifth
Amendment rights, Stimwave may apply for appropriate relief, if needed.
Following this Letter Order, Ms. Perryman’s application to have the stay lifted
is GRANTED. The parties should inform me whether the Status Quo Order,
currently the subject of an “Ex Parte Motion to Vacate,”4 should remain in place
following the lift of the stay.
Sincerely,
/s/ Sam Glasscock Vice Chancellor Glasscock III
2 Dkt. No. 450. 3 See, e.g., id. 4 Dkt. No. 497.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Stimwave Technologies Incorporated v. Laura Tyler Perryman, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stimwave-technologies-incorporated-v-laura-tyler-perryman-delch-2022.