Deloitte LLP, et al. v. Klig

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE DELOITTE LLP, DELOITTE TAX LLP and DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP, each a Delaware Limited Liability Partnership, Defendants BelowAppellants, v. STEVEN E. KLIG, Plaintiff BelowAppellee. § § § § § § § § § § § § § § No. 569, 2010 Court Below-Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware C.A. No. 4993 Submitted: September 23, 2010 Decided: September 27, 2010 Before STEELE, Chief Justice, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices. ORDER This 27th day of September 2010, it appears to the Court that: (1) The defendants-appellants, Deloitte LLP, Deloitte Tax LLP and Deloitte & Touche LLP ( Deloitte ), have petitioned this Court, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 42, to accept an appeal from the August 6, 2010 interlocutory order of the Court of Chancery, which ordered Deloitte to produce documents on its privilege log. Deloitte also has requested a stay pending appeal of the Court of Chancery s interlocutory ruling. (2) Deloitte filed its application for certification to take an interlocutory appeal in the Court of Chancery on August 16, 2010. On that same date, Deloitte also filed a motion in the Court of Chancery for a stay of the interlocutory ruling. On September 7, 2010, the Court of Chancery denied the application for certification on the ground that the requirements of Rule 42 had not been met. The Court of Chancery extended its temporary stay, which was ordered on August 17, 2010, for an additional 20 calendar days. (3) Applications for interlocutory review are addressed to the sound discretion of this Court. In the exercise of its discretion, the Court has concluded that Deloitte s application for interlocutory review fails to meet the requirements of Rule 42 and, therefore, should be refused. Deloitte s motion for a stay pending appeal is, therefore, moot. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the interlocutory appeal is REFUSED. The motion for a stay is DENIED as moot. BY THE COURT: /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely Justice 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.