Opinion
C.A. No. 9898-VCN
10-28-2015
Re: Smashburger Master LLC v. Prokupek
Tammy L. Mercer, Esquire Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP 1000 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Robert W. Mallard, Esquire Dorsey & Whitney (Delaware) LLP 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1010 Wilmington, DE 19801
Tammy L. Mercer, Esquire
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
1000 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Robert W. Mallard, Esquire
Dorsey & Whitney (Delaware) LLP
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1010
Wilmington, DE 19801
Dear Counsel:
The question is whether Mr. Mallard's letter of July 28, 2015, should be accorded confidential treatment despite an inadvertent failure to file a redacted version as required by Court of Chancery Rule 5.1. The failure to file a redacted version resulted in the Register in Chancery's "unsealing" of the letter. Counsel moved promptly, and the Court restored confidential treatment to allow an opportunity to consider how to handle the letter.
Unlike other cases in which the failure to file a redacted version resulted in a loss of confidentiality, the confidential information, in this instance, was that of a party other than the party on whose behalf the letter was filed. The information is sensitive, and the party expecting that its information would be accorded confidential treatment would be unduly prejudiced if public access were allowed.
Under the circumstances, the Court, despite the directive of Rule 5.1, will allow confidential treatment, otherwise subject to Rule 5.1, to continue for Mr. Mallard's letter of July 28, 2015.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/ John W. Noble JWN/cap
cc: Neal C. Belgam, Esquire
Register in Chancery-K
Theravectys SA v. Immune Design Corp., 2015 WL 757665 (Del. Ch. Feb. 18, 2015); Capella Hldgs., Inc. v. Anderson, C.A. No. 9809-VCN (Del. Ch. Oct. 28, 2014) (TRANSCRIPT).