Young v. Klaassen and Sunrise Senior Living
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE STEPHEN P. LAMB VICE CHANCELLOR New Castle County Court House 500 N. King Street, Suite 11400 Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Submitted: August 15, 2008 Decided: August 19, 2008 Carmella P. Keener, Esquire Rosenthal Monhait & Goddess, P.A. Mellon Bank Center, Suite 1401 P.O. Box 1070 Wilmington, DE 19899-1070 Richard L. Renck, Esquire Ashby & Geddes 500 Delaware Avenue P.O. Box 1150 Wilmington, DE 19899 Kenneth J. Nachbar, Esquire Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899 Jeremy D. Anderson, Esquire Connolly, Bove, Lodge & Hutz 1007 N. Orange Street P.O. Box 2207 Wilmington, DE 19899 RE: Peter V. Young and Ellen Roberts Young v. Paul J. Klaassen, et al. and Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. C.A. No. 2770-VCL Dear Counsel: I have reviewed and considered the jointly submitted motion for clarification. The motion is clear and concise, and I appreciate the effort made by everyone involved in submitting it. As you know, in my April 25, 2008 Order, I granted the plaintiffs a limited procedural right to access documents prepared in connection with the Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. special board committee s findings concerning the matters alleged in the complaint. I did so after the defendants asked the court to rely on those findings in connection with a motion to dismiss. I did not allow the plaintiffs full blown discovery. In response, the defendants have produced, in a redacted form, a narrative outline prepared by the committee s counsel from which counsel spoke when it delivered its oral report to the committee. There is no other written report. The redactions were made to remove irrelevant information and also to preserve the portions labeled conclusions that Young v. Klaassen, et al. C.A. No. 2770-VCL August 19, 2008 Page 2 reflect attorney-client privileged information. The defendants have also refused to produce copies of the witness interview summaries prepared by the committee s counsel. The motion for clarification asks whether the April 25 Order requires the defendants to produce either the sections of the narrative labeled conclusions or the witness summaries. At the time of the April 25 Order, I considered whether or not to order the production of witness summaries and decided that step was not warranted as a response to the defendants improper, but limited, injection of the committee s findings into the motion to dismiss. I see no reason to reach a different result now. By contrast, I was not aware of the existence of the so-called narrative outline or the form it took. In view of the assertedly privileged nature of the sections that have been redacted and the steps taken by the committee and its counsel to protect the privileged nature of those communications, I do not interpret the April 25 Order to require their production at this time. Moreover, because of the limited nature of the discovery permitted by the April 25 Order, it is premature to consider whether or not the plaintiffs may be entitled to gain access to that information in the future in connection with merits discovery. For these reasons, the court rules in favor of the defendants on both issues presented in the motion for clarification. IT IS SO ORDERED. /s/ Stephen P. Lamb Vice Chancellor
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.
