TowerHill Wealth Management, et al. v. The Bander Family Partnership, L.P.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE New Castle County Courthouse 500 N. King Street, Suite 11400 Wilmington, Delaware 19801-3734 LEO E. STRINE, JR. VICE CHANCELLOR Date Submitted: July 28, 2009 Date Decided: August 3, 2009 Richard I.G. Jones, Esquire Ashby & Geddes 500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 RE: Daniel A. Dreisbach, Esquire Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. 920 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 TowerHill Wealth Management, et al. v. The Bander Family Partnership, L.P., C.A. No. 3830-VCS Dear Counsel: I have reviewed the lengthy submissions by the parties regarding the defendant s Rule 56(f) application. I am troubled that the defendant seems to be more motivated by a desire to enmesh the plaintiffs in an unfocused discovery process that will be dragged out for far too long than is justifiable and far too extensive than is warranted given the issues and dollars at issue in this case. Nonetheless, despite the defendant s pattern of torpor in discovery (which I consider to be established, despite the defendant s attempt to excuse its delays) and unfocused submission, the plaintiffs demand that the defendant proceed directly to summary judgment briefing is too stringent. The plaintiffs motion for summary judgment implicates facts about the plaintiffs conduct that the defendant may inquire into in a limited and focused way. Towerhill Wealth Management, LLC, et al. v. The Bander Family Partnership, LP August 3, 2009 Page 2 of 3 Accordingly, the defendant has until October 15 to complete additional discovery, and it may take no more than five depositions. I impose this second limitation because the defendant has failed to demonstrate why any larger universe of witnesses would be anything other than unduly burdensome and unnecessary given the issues in the case. Indeed, the defendant s Rule 56(f) submission suggests that a very limited number of players are involved in this unusual struggle, unusual in the sense that it remains difficult to determine why this case has not been resolved given that the underlying issues seem to involve less money in dispute than it will cost for the parties to litigate the case. Five is a generous number, two or three is probably more justified in light of the defendant s weak showing, but I gave it some leeway. The parties shall meet and confer in person with the senior Delaware lawyers involved in the representation present to work out a plan to finish discovery and brief the summary judgment motions. Any disagreement about the schedule or other matters shall be brought to the court by motion, accompanied by a certification that the senior Delaware lawyers involved believe in good faith that there was a genuine effort involving them directly to resolve the dispute short of bringing the matter to the court. The schedule shall contemplate the scheduling of a trial in the event that neither side is granted summary judgment on all issues. Finally, I encourage the lawyers to re-read the papers they have submitted. It remains striking how expensive and extensive these submissions are in light of the Towerhill Wealth Management, LLC, et al. v. The Bander Family Partnership, LP August 3, 2009 Page 3 of 3 underlying financial issues. Given this, it may be that the application of dispassionate legal and financial analysis and judgment should be brought to bear so that clients are proceeding on the basis of logic and economic rationality. For the foregoing reasons, the defendant s Rule 56(f) application is granted to the limited extent identified herein. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr. Vice Chancellor LESJr/eb
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.
