In re The Walt Disney Co.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT STATE CHANCERY OF THE OF DELAWARE OF EFiled: Ott 30 2003 4:26 Filing ID 2630941 WILLIAM B. CHANDLER III CHANCELLOR .- GEORGETOWN DELAWARE 19947 TELEPHONE (302) 858-5424 FACSIMILE (302) 858-5251 October 30,2003 VIA e-FILING Joseph A. Rosenthal Rosenthal, Monhait, Cjross & Goddess, PA. 919 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 R. Franklin Balotti Richards, Layton & Finger P.O. Box 551 Wilmington, DE 19899 Robert K. Payson Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP P.O. Box 951 Wilmington, DE 19899 Re: Joel Friedlander Bouchard Margules & Friedlander 222 Delaware Ave., Suite 1102 Wilmington, DE 1980 1 I David C. McBride Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP PO. Box 391 Wilmington, DE 19899-0391 A. Gilchrist Sparks, III Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel1 P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 In re The Walt Disney Co. Derivative Litig. Civil Action No. 15452-NC Dear Counsel: This letter addresses Michael Ovitz s motion to compel plaintiffs answers to certain interrogatories before discovery is completed. For the reasons set forth below, I grant the motion. On August 26, 2003, Ovitz served the plaintiffs with eleven interrogatories. The first nine interrogatories are contention interrogatories. The tenth interrogatory requests information related to plaintiffs damages calculations. The eleventh interrogatory requests the number of shares owned by the named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs understand, before his deposition, the factual basis for the claim against him. Plaintiffs have already completed substantial discovery and should have a suffici_ent basis to answer these interrogatories expeditiously. (Of course, plaintiffs are only required to answer the interrogatories based on the information currently available to them.) Plaintiffs have expressed the concern that responding to the interrogatories would sidetrack them from preparing for several depositions scheduled in the coming weeks. But this concern is unavailing as the interrogatories were filed on August 26 and any time pressure caused by this Court s decision is due to plaintiffs own machinations. As Ovitz withdrew his motion to compel an answer to the tenth interrogatory (relating to plaintiffs damages calculations) because of the plaintiffs representation that the information sought will be provided in the report of plaintiffs damage expert, my ruling is limited to the first nine interrogatories. I have entered an Order consistent with this decision. Very truly yours, S/William B. Chandler III William B. Chandler III WBCIII:meg oc: xc: Register in Chancery Vice Chancellors Law Libraries ,
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
