New Castle County v. Christiana Town Center LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
EFiled: Jan 26 2005 4:58PM EST Filing ID 5021073 COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE JOHN W. NOBLE VICE CHANCELLOR 417 SOUTH STATE STREET DOVER, DELAWARE 19901 TELEPHONE: (302) 739-4397 FACSIMILE: (302) 739-6179 January 26, 2005 Collins J. Seitz, Jr., Esquire Max B. Walton, Esquire Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP 1007 N. Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19899-2207 Richard L. Abbott, Esquire The Bayard Firm 222 Delaware Avenue, #900 P.O. Box 25130 Wilmington, DE 19899-5130 Dennis J. Siebold, Esquire Megan Kochell D lorio, Esquire New Castle County Law Department 87 Reads Way New Castle, DE 19720-1648 Re: New Castle County v. Christiana Town Center LLC C.A. No. 20604 Date Submitted: October 14, 2004 Dear Counsel: In this letter, the Court addresses two open issues: 1. Motion for Reargument Defendant Christiana Town Center LLC ( Defendant ) has moved for reargument or clarification of Part II of the Court s Memorandum Opinion and Order of August 16, 2004, which required the Defendant to allow access to its January 26, 2005 Page 2 lands for purposes of inspection by experts retained by Plaintiff New Castle County (the County ). Those lands, and the improvements made by the Defendant, are the subject of this litigation. Motions for reargument under Court of Chancery Rule 59(f) require the proponent to demonstrate that the Court has misapplied the law or the facts in such a way that the outcome would be different.1 I am satisfied that the Court did not overlook a controlling principle or decision of law, did not misapply the law, and did not misapprehend the facts. Therefore, the motion for reargument is denied. The Defendant s motion for reargument did not merely challenge the Court s decision; in addition, it sought the additional relief of limiting the duration of the site inspection contemplated by the Court s order. The County properly argues that a motion for reargument is not the appropriate procedural device for raising new contentions.2 However, putting that argument aside, the simple answer to the Defendant s contention is that the Court s order anticipated a meaningful and thorough site inspection and the Defendant has offered no reason for 1 See, e.g., West Center City Neighborhood Ass n, Inc. v. West Center Neighborhood Planning Advisory Comm., Inc., 2003 WL 23021929, at *1 (Del. Ch. Dec. 18, 2003); In re ML/EQ Real Estate P ship Litig., 2000 WL 364188, at *1 (Del. Ch. Mar. 22, 2000). 2 Cummings v. Jimmy s Grille, Inc., 2000 WL 1211167, at *2 (Del. Super. Aug. 9, 2000). January 26, 2005 Page 3 concluding that the County is proposing an inspection that would be unreasonable or otherwise unduly burdensome. 2. In Camera Inspection The County has asserted that two documents containing handwritten notes are subject to the attorney-client privilege. These documents, from the file of Thomas Hubbard, have been withheld from the County s response to the Defendant s discovery request, but they were submitted for in camera inspection under Mr. Walton s letter of October 14, 2004. The Court has reviewed the two documents. The handwritten notes reflect the advice of counsel and, therefore, are privileged. It should also be noted that versions of the documents without the handwritten notes have been produced by the County. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, /s/ John W. Noble JWN/cap cc: Register in Chancery-NC
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
