Court Opinion

ID: 9881500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-02 21:03:50.020974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:15:26.607077
License: Public Domain

COURT OF CHANCERY
                                     OF THE
                               STATE OF DELAWARE
     LORI W. WILL                                              LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER
    VICE CHANCELLOR                                               500 N. KING STREET, SUITE 11400
                                                                 WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801-3734

                                     October 2, 2023

Stephen C. Norman, Esquire                       Gregory P. Williams, Esquire
Matthew F. Davis, Esquire                        Rudolf Koch, Esquire
Tyler J. Leavengood, Esquire                     Robert L. Burns, Esquire
Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP                    Matthew D. Perri, Esquire
1313 North Market Street                         Richard Layton & Finger, P.A.
Wilmington, Delaware 19801                       920 North King Street
                                                 Wilmington, Delaware 19801

          RE:    ITG Brands, LLC v. Reynolds American Inc., et al.,
                 C.A. No. 2017-0129-LWW

Dear Counsel:

          Concurrently with its cross-motion for summary judgment on remedies, ITG

filed a motion to compel (the “Motion”).1 The Motion asks that the court order

Reynolds to: (1) produce documents supporting Reynolds’ request for over $7.4

million in attorneys’ fees and costs in this litigation; (2) supplement its response to

Interrogatory No. 3 to ITG’s First Set of Interrogatories; and (3) produce an

unredacted version of a purportedly privileged document either (a) to ITG directly

1
 Capitalized terms not defined herein have the meaning given to them in the court’s
October 2, 2023 memorandum opinion. Dkt. 390.
C.A. No. 2017-0129-LWW
October 2, 2023
Page 2 of 6

or (b) to the court for in camera review.2 The Motion is granted in part and denied

in part, as explained below.

      A.     Documents Regarding Reynolds’ Attorneys’ Fees

      ITG’s request for an order compelling Reynolds to produce documents

supporting Reynolds’ request for attorneys’ fees in this action is denied. At this

stage, Reynolds is not asking for the court to resolve the amount of attorneys’ fees

it may ultimately recover. As explained in the October 2, 2023 memorandum

opinion resolving the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, Reynolds may

submit a Rule 88 affidavit, including documentation supporting its request for fees,

if it demonstrates its entitlement to recover these fees.3 Once Reynolds files its fee

application (assuming it proves its entitlement), ITG will have the opportunity to

litigate the fees’ reasonableness.

      B.     Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 3

      Interrogatory No. 3 of ITG’s First Set of Interrogatories sought from

Reynolds:

2
 ITG Brands, LLC’s Mot. to Compel (Dkt. 349) (“Mot.”); see also Reynolds’ Opp. to
ITG Brands, LLC’s Mot. to Compel (Dkt. 356); Reply in Support of ITG Brands, LLC’s
Mot. to Compel (Dkt. 363) (“Reply”).
3
 See Dkt. 390 at 39-42 (discussing Reynolds’ request for the “Delaware Attorneys’
Fees”); id. at 13 (defining “Delaware Attorneys’ Fees”).
C.A. No. 2017-0129-LWW
October 2, 2023
Page 3 of 6

         [a] chronology of every contact, correspondence, meeting, or
         Communication that [Reynolds] had with ITG Brands, with Florida,
         and/or with Philip Morris USA Inc. . . . in any way related to ITG
         Brands joining or the potential for ITG Brands to join the Florida
         Settlement Agreement from July 15, 2015 to the present.4

Reynolds responded to this interrogatory on January 26, 2022.5 It explained that the

last communication between Reynolds and Philip Morris on the identified topic took

place on December 2, 2021.6

         According to ITG, Reynolds represented that ITG’s joinder to the Florida

Settlement Agreement was agreed to between Reynolds, Philip Morris, and Florida

and remained a possibility as of November 2, 2022 (when Reynolds filed it summary

judgment brief).7 As a result, ITG contends that there are likely communications

between Reynolds and Philip Morris post-dating December 2, 2021 that are

responsive to Interrogatory No. 3.

4
    Mot. Ex. 5.
5
    Mot. ¶ 6.
6
    Mot. Ex. 6 at 6.
7
    Mot. ¶ 7.
C.A. No. 2017-0129-LWW
October 2, 2023
Page 4 of 6

         On November 8, 2022, ITG asked Reynolds to supplement its response to

Interrogatory No. 3.8 Reynolds refused. Reynolds also refused to represent that no

further responsive communications took place after December 2, 2021.9

         Court of Chancery Rule 26(e)(3) imposes a “duty to supplement responses”

when “new requests for supplementation of prior responses” are made. 10 The

requested supplementation is relevant under Rule 26 in light of Reynolds’ request

for specific performance requiring ITG to join the Florida Settlement Agreement.11

The scope of the interrogatory is broad. ITG’s request for supplemental is therefore

granted.

         If no responsive communications occurred since December 2, 2021, Reynolds

should say so.         But if such communications have occurred, Reynolds must

supplement its response to Interrogatory No. 3.

         C.       In Camera Review

         During Reynolds’ deposition of ITG’s litigation counsel Elizabeth McCallum,

Reynolds’ examining attorney purportedly referenced an unproduced document that

8
    Mot. Ex. 1.
9
    Mot. Exs. 2, 4.
10
     Ct. Ch. R. 26(e)(3).
11
     See Dkt. 336 at 18.
C.A. No. 2017-0129-LWW
October 2, 2023
Page 5 of 6

contradicted McCallum’s recollection.12 After McCallum’s deposition, ITG asked

that Reynolds produce “any documents or electronically stored information . . . that

reflect or describe communications with Ms. McCallum or any person affiliated with

ITG Brands, LLC concerning any matter related to the issues in this litigation to the

extent that such documents have not already been produced.”13

         Initially, Reynolds objected on privilege grounds and refused to identify the

document’s corresponding privilege log number.14 Reynolds has since disclosed a

portion of the document (a set of handwritten notes taken by in house counsel) in

connection with its summary judgment briefing but maintains redactions on the

rest.15 ITG asks to see the remainder of the document for context and completeness

or, alternatively, asks the court to review the document in camera to determine if the

redacted information is privileged.16

12
     Mot. ¶ 12; Mot. Ex. 7 at 228.
13
     Mot. Ex. 1.
14
     Mot. Ex. 2.
15
     Dkt. 354 Ex. H (handwritten notes).
16
     Reply ¶ 17.
C.A. No. 2017-0129-LWW
October 2, 2023
Page 6 of 6

         The latter request is granted. Reynolds is directed to provide the relevant

document to the court for in camera review along with the corresponding privilege

log entry.17

         ITG also contends that Reynolds waived privilege by placing the

communication at issue and seeks production of all documents related to the subject

matter.18 This assertion was not raised in ITG’s opening Motion (or its proposed

order). Accordingly, I will not address it.19

                               *            *            *

         The Motion is granted in part and denied in part as set forth above. Each party

shall bear their own fees and costs associated with the Motion. To the extent

necessary for this decision to take effect, IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                Sincerely yours,

                                                /s/ Lori W. Will

                                                Lori W. Will
                                                Vice Chancellor

17
  Dkt. 354 Ex. H; see Mechel Bluestone, Inc. v. James C. Just. Cos., Inc., 2014 WL
7011195, at *10 (Del. Ch. Dec. 12, 2014) (explaining that the court will grant in camera
review to “determine whether the descriptions on the privilege log were accurate and
whether privilege was properly asserted”).
18
     Reply ¶ 18.
19
  Emerald P’rs v. Berlin, 726 A.2d 1215, 1224 (Del. 1999) (“Issues not briefed are
deemed waived.”).