Miron v. Microsoft Corporation, et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE WILLIAM B. CHANDLER III STATE OF DELAWARE CHANCELLOR COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE 34 THE CIRCLE GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947 June 3, 2005 Seth D. Rigrodsky Steven G. Schulman Ralph N. Sianni Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP 919 N. Market Street, Suite 411 Wilmington, DE 19801 Richard M. Donaldson Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 750 Wilmington, DE 19801 Andre G. Bouchard Bouchard Margules & Friedlander 222 Delaware Ave., Ste. 1400 Wilmington, DE 10801 Raymond J. DiCamillo Jeffrey L. Moyer Chad M. Shandler Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. P.O. Box 551 Wilmington, DE 19899 Lawrence C. Ashby Ashby & Geddes 222 Delaware Avenue P.O. Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19899 Re: Miron v. Microsoft Corporation, et al. Civil Action No. 1149-N Dear Counsel: I have considered the numerous written submissions regarding plaintiff Michael Miron s motion to expedite the proceedings in this matter. Because of the press of other business, I regret that I am unable to provide counsel with a more fulsome description of the bases for my decision to deny the motion. Fundamentally, I am not persuaded that these proceedings need to be expedited in order to afford Mr. Miron and other members of the purported class complete relief. First, plaintiff Miron took no steps to seek expedition until two months after he filed the initial complaint in March 2005. The actions about which Mr. Miron complains were known to him even earlier than March 2005. Second, the purported urgency driving the motion to expedite is the potential expiration of stock option and contract rights with ContentGuard. ContentGuard, however, is a party to this action. Thus, the Court can always fashion an appropriate remedy at a later date by an award of damages. Alternatively, as a court of equity, this Court would have the power to extend the option period if it concluded that money damages were not an adequate remedy. In sum, this Court has broad powers more than adequate to the task of remedying any injury inflicted upon Mr. Miron or other employee/shareholders, either as a result of the expiration of stock options or as a result of the exercise of such options. Accordingly, I deny plaintiff Michael Miron s motion to expedite. In addition, I grant defendants motion for limited discovery regarding plaintiff Miron s adequacy as a representative plaintiff in these proceedings. I strongly urge counsel to confer and agree upon a standard scheduling order that will establish a reasonably prompt schedule for discovery, motions, etc. If counsel cannot agree, proposed scheduling orders should be submitted to the Court for its consideration. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, William B. Chandler III WBCIII:meg 2
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.
