John Solak v. Twitter, Inc.

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE KATHALEEN ST. JUDE MCCORMICK CHANCELLOR LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER 500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734 October 12, 2022 Blake A. Bennett, Esquire Cooch and Taylor, P.A. The Nemours Building 1007 N. Orange St., Suite 1120 Wilmington, DE 19801 Re: Raymond J. DiCamillo, Esquire Kevin M. Gallagher, Esquire Matthew D. Perri, Esquire Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. 920 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Solak v. Twitter, Inc. C.A. No. 2022-0491-KSJM 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, 2022.1 Plaintiff and Defendant then entered into a series of stipulations extending Defendant’s time to respond to the Complaint.2 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.”3 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, 1 C.A. No. 2022-0491-KSJM, Docket (“Dkt.”) 1. 2 Dkt. 7, 9, 11. 3 Dkt. 11. C.A. No. 2022-0613-KSJM October 12, 2022 Page 2 of 2 however, Plaintiff states that Defendant has failed to respond to Plaintiff’s scheduling proposals.4 Plaintiff requests that I issue an order requiring Defendant to respond to the Complaint and Motion to Expedite.5 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. Sincerely, /s/ Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick Chancellor cc: All counsel of record (by File & ServeXpress) 4 Dkt. 12. 5 Id.

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.