IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY O F THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR NEW CASTLE COUNTY
BERNARD SZETO,
Plaintiff, i
V.
;
STEVEN SCHIFFER, JONATHAN
SOLOW, JOANN R. SCHULTZ, ; Civil Action No. 12,934
JOHN K. VYDEN, PHOENIX LASER
SYSTEMS, INC., a Delaware ;
Corporation, ADVANCED MEDICAL
LASERS, INC., a Delaware Corpora- !
tion and OPTRONICS TECHNOLOGIES, 1
INC., a Delaware Corporation, )
Defendants. ;
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Submitted: May 17, 1993
Decided: November 24:, 1993
ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
TO STAY DISCOVERY: GRANTED.
Robert K. Payson, Esquire, Donald J. Wolfe, Jr., Esquire, and
Stephen C. Norman, Esquire, POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON,
Wilmington, DE 19899-0951; OF COUNSEL: Alan H. Kaufman,
Esquire, Pamela E. Berman, Esquire, and Robert M. Buchanan,
Jr., Esquire, CHOATE, HALL, 6r STEWART, Boston, MA 02109,
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
Gregory V. Varallo, Esquire, Lisa A. Paolini, Esquire, and
Matthew E. Fischer, Esquire, RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER,
Wilmington, DE 19899-0551, Attorneys for the Individual
Phoenix Defendants
Steven J. Balick, Esquire, ASHBY (ir GEDDES, Wilmington, DE 19899-
1150, Attorneys for Defendant Phoenix Laser Systems, Inc.
HARTNETT, Vice Chancellor
Defendants' Motion For a Protective Order To Stay Discovery
pending this Court's ruling on Defendants' Motion To Dismiss for
failure of plaintiff to have made a pre-suit demand pursuant to
Chancery Rule 23.1 is, in this Court's discretion, granted.
SNIPPETS:
JOHN K. VYDEN, PHOENIX LASER
ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER
Defendants' Motion For a Protective Order To Stay Discovery pending this Court's ruling on
This suit challenges an alleged improper transfer of all or substantially all of the assets
The complaint also alleges unlawful entrenchment of Phoenix's individual directors (the
At the April 23 board meeting, the defendants allegedly appointed an Jndependent Committee to
Because the pending motion to dismiss must be decided solely upon the well-plead allegations
It is well-settled that application of the discovery rules is subject to the exercise of
Supr., 517 A.2d 1056, 1061 (19861, citinq Dann v. Chrvsler Co=, Del.
In a case where a pre-suit demand is made, however, discovery is less likely to be allowed
In the present case, plaintiff sent two pre-suit demand letters to the defendants on March 29
The defendants' reliance upon Kavlan is misplaced, however; In KaDlan, the SLC, after being
Delaware law is quite strict as to the application of Chancery Rule 23.1 If a pre-suit demand
After a plaintiff makes a pre-suit demand, thereby conceding that a presuit demand would not
|
