Visbal Salgado v. Mobile Services International, LLC, et al.Annotate this Case
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 July 11, 2012 John G. Harris, Esquire Berger Harris, LLC One Commerce Center, 3rd Floor 1201 North Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Jennifer M. Becnel-Guzzo, Esquire Saul Ewing LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801 Visbal Salgado v. Mobile Services International, LLC, et al. C.A. No. 5268-VCN Date Submitted: July 10, 2012 Re: Dear Counsel: discovery in this matter. burden that it has imposed upon them. They highlight the problems that additional expenses associated with additional discovery will cause them. That the case has - especially when measured in the context of Visbal Salgado v. Mobile Services International, LLC, et al. C.A. No. 5268-VCN July 11, 2012 Page 2 what may be at stake are excessive is likely an all-too-accurate observation. Perhaps one side bears greater responsibility for the current state of affairs, but certainly there is plenty of blame to be shared by all parties. Decision must be assessed under Court of Chancery Rule 59(f). To succeed on a motion for reargument, the moving party must show that the Court misunderstood a material fact or misapplied the law.1 Although one can understand why the have not satisfied either of the prongs of the applicable standard. Accor assuming that is how their letter of July 3, 2012, should be characterized is denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Very truly yours, /s/ John W. Noble JWN/cap cc: Register in Chancery-K 1 See, e.g., PharmAthene, Inc. v. SIGA Techs., Inc., 2011 WL 6392906, at *1 (Del. Ch. Dec. 16, 2011); Miles, Inc. v. Cookson Am., Inc., 677 A.2d 505, 506 (Del. Ch. 1995) (citation omitted).