Opinion
C.A. No. 5957-VCN
10-03-2014
Re: Matthew v. Laudamiel, et al.
Thad J. Bracegirdle, Esquire Wilks, Lukoff & Bracegirdle, LLC 1300 North Grant Avenue, Suite 100 Wilmington, DE 19806 Mr. Christophe Laudamiel 313 West 19th Street, Apt. 32 New York, NY 10011 cl@leschristophs.com Seth J. Reidenberg, Esquire Tybout, Redfearn & Pell 750 Shipyard Drive, Suite 400 Wilmington, DE 19801 DreamAir LLC c/o Christophe Laudamiel, President 210 11th Avenue, Suite 1002 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
Thad J. Bracegirdle, Esquire
Wilks, Lukoff & Bracegirdle, LLC
1300 North Grant Avenue, Suite 100
Wilmington, DE 19806
Mr. Christophe Laudamiel
313 West 19th Street, Apt. 32
New York, NY 10011
cl@leschristophs.com
Seth J. Reidenberg, Esquire
Tybout, Redfearn & Pell
750 Shipyard Drive, Suite 400
Wilmington, DE 19801
DreamAir LLC
c/o Christophe Laudamiel, President
210 11th Avenue, Suite 1002
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
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, that granted Fläkt Woods 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. 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. 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.
Matthew v. Laudamiel, 2014 WL 3586594 (Del. Ch. July 21, 2014).
See, e.g., Salgado v. Mobile Servs. Int'l, LLC, 2012 WL 2903970, at *1 (Del. Ch. July 11, 2012).
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.
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.
The necessary flexibility here makes drawing rigid lines difficult.
Accordingly, the Motion for Reargument is denied.
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.
--------
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/ John W. Noble JWN/cap
cc: Register in Chancery-K