Opinion
2022-0491-KSJM
10-12-2022
Solak v. Twitter, Inc.
Blake A. Bennett, Esquire Cooch and Taylor, P.A. Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esquire Kevin M. Gallagher, Esquire Matthew D. Perri, Esquire Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
Blake A. Bennett, Esquire Cooch and Taylor, P.A.
Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esquire Kevin M. Gallagher, Esquire Matthew D. Perri, Esquire Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.
Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick Chancellor
Dear Counsel:
Plaintiff John Solak ("Plaintiff") filed the above-referenced action to compel Defendant Twitter, Inc. ("Defendant") to provide its books and records for inspection under to 8 Del. C. § 220. Plaintiff filed his Complaint and Motion to Expedite on June 7, 2022.Plaintiff and Defendant then entered into a series of stipulations extending Defendant's time to respond to the Complaint. The most recent of these stipulations, which I granted on August 11, provides that Defendant "shall not be required to respond to the Complaint until a date to be mutually agreed upon by the parties or ordered by the Court."
C. A. No. 2022-0491-KSJM, Docket ("Dkt.") 1.
Dkt. 7, 9, 11.
Dkt. 11.
The parties failed to agree to a date to respond to the Complaint or a schedule for litigating this action. In a status letter submitted to the court on September 28, 2022, however, Plaintiff states that Defendant has failed to respond to Plaintiff's scheduling proposals. Plaintiff requests that I issue an order requiring Defendant to respond to the Complaint and Motion to Expedite.
Dkt. 12.
Id.
Plaintiff's request is granted. Defendant is hereby ordered to respond to Plaintiff's Complaint and Motion to Expedite no later than 5 p.m., October 26, 2022.
IT IS SO ORDERED.