Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

Charge Injection Techs., Inc. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.

Charge Injection Techs., Inc. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co.

Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle

March 4, 2015, Submitted; March 31, 2015, Decided

C.A. No. 07C-12-134-JRJ

Opinion

Jurden, P.J.

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Defendant E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company's ("DuPont") Renewed Motion to Compel. For the reasons that follow, DuPont's Motion is DENIED.

II. BACKGROUND

Charge Injection Technologies, Inc. ("CIT") instituted suit against DuPont in December 2007, alleging that DuPont wrongfully used and disclosed CIT's proprietary and confidential technology.1 Between November 2010 and October 2011, there was little activity in this case, apparently because of CIT's failure to pay prior counsel's bills.2 On October 31, 2011, [*2]  the Court granted CIT's original counsel's motion to withdraw.3 On December 1, 2011, CIT's current lead counsel, Ahmad, Zavitsanos, Anaipakos, Alavi & Mensing ("AZA") entered its appearance in the case.4

In 2012, CIT obtained litigation financing from Aloe Investments Limited ("Aloe").5 In the summer of 2013, upon learning of the litigation financing, DuPont questioned whether CIT had engaged in champerty and maintenance in violation of Delaware law.6 On August 12, 2013, DuPont filed an Emergency Motion to Stay ("Motion to Stay"), requesting a stay on the merits until the champerty and maintenance issues are resolved.7

Prior to filing its Motion to Stay, DuPont served CIT with discovery requests [*3]  on the champerty and maintenance issue. DuPont's Sixth Set of Document Requests, which are also the subject of this Renewed Motion to Compel, seeks the production of: (1) litigation financing agreements between CIT and its investors; (2) communications between CIT or its attorneys and its investors pertaining to the investment and the negotiation of the financing agreement (including drafts of the financing agreements); and (3) communications between CIT or its attorneys and its investors pertaining to this litigation.8

CIT's interrogatory responses identified Aloe as an investor, and stated that CIT had no relationship to Aloe prior to January 1, 2007.9 CIT refused to produce any documents in response to DuPont's document requests, including the litigation-financing agreement between CIT and Aloe ("Financing Agreement"), claiming such documents are protected as attorney work product and/or subject to attorney/client [*4]  privilege and the requests are irrelevant, overly broad and unduly burdensome.10

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2015 Del. Super. LEXIS 166 *; 2015 WL 1540520

CHARGE INJECTION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Plaintiff, v. E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS & COMPANY, Defendant.

Notice: THIS OPINION HAS NOT BEEN RELEASED FOR PUBLICATION. UNTIL RELEASED, IT IS SUBJECT TO REVISION OR WITHDRAWAL.

Prior History:  [*1] Upon Defendant E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Company's Renewed Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Respond to Defendant's Sixth Set of Requests for the Production of Documents and Things.

Charge Injection Techs., Inc. v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 2009 Del. Super. LEXIS 340 (Del. Super. Ct., Sept. 25, 2009)

Disposition: DENIED.

CORE TERMS

financing agreement, redacted, documents, work product, champerty, funding, work product doctrine, payment terms, work product protection, third-party, disclosure, financing, requests, investors, merits, log

Civil Procedure, Discovery, Privileged Communications, General Overview, Evidence, Burdens of Proof, Allocation, Discovery & Disclosure, Relevance of Discoverable Information, Work Product Doctrine, Opinion Work Product, Scope of Protection