Opinion
Civil Action No. 023-N.
Date Submitted: May 12, 2004.
Date Decided: May 14, 2004.
William M. Lafferty, Morris, Nichols, Arsht Tunnell, Wilmington, DE.
William D. Johnston, Young Conaway Stargatt Taylor, LLP Wilmington, DE.
Dear Mr. Lafferty and Mr. Johnston:
I have considered the dueling discovery motions filed by each side in this dispute. I see no need for oral argument and, thus, will turn immediately to my decision. As I believe my earlier opinions make clear the narrow scope of discovery permitted in this case, I need only briefly touch upon the pending motions.
(1) Tafeen has agreed to provide responses to Document Request Nos. 1, 33-35, 48, 51-57; Interrogatory Nos. 1-3, 27-28, 32-34, 53, 55-58, 60; and Request for Admission Nos. 1-4, 10-18, 21-22, 36, 38-39, 46, 48. These responses should be made promptly.
(2) Tafeen is not required to respond to Document Request Nos. 47, 49-50; Interrogatory Nos. 50-52, 54; and Request for Admission Nos. 79, 37, 40-43. These requests are beyond the scope of the relevant inquiry in this advancement proceeding. That inquiry, to repeat, is: what did Tafeen know about the investigation into allegedly improper accounting at Homestore and his right to advancement on or around the time he purchased his Florida home?
(3) Tafeen is not required to respond to Document Request Nos. 58, 60; Interrogatory Nos. 47, 59; and, Request for Admission Nos. 44, 47, 49, as these requests seek information regarding a general ability to repay that is not implicated by Homestore's specific unclean hands defense.
(4) Tafeen is required to respond to Document Request No. 57 and Interrogatory Nos. 45 and 46. Tafeen is not required to respond to Request for Admission Nos. 3, 35, 40-43 and 47.
(5) Tafeen's deposition shall not exceed one day (eight hours) in length.
Homestore's motion to compel is denied. Tafeen's motion for a protective order is granted in part, denied in part.
IT IS SO ORDERED.