Court Opinion

ID: 9959869
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 20:02:32.556242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:58.348976
License: Public Domain

COURT OF CHANCERY
                                        OF THE
                                  STATE OF DELAWARE
   BONNIE W. DAVID                                                    COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE
MAGISTRATE IN CHANCERY                                                          34 THE CIRCLE
                                                                            GEORGETOWN, DE 19947

                                Final Report: April 12, 2024
                               Date Submitted: April 11, 2024

       Catherine A. Gaul, Esquire                  Gary W. Lipkin, Esquire
       Ashby & Geddes                              Saul Ewing LLP
       500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor              1201 North Market Street, Suite 2300
       Wilmington, Delaware 19801                  Wilmington, Delaware 19801

           RE:   Timothy James O’Neil-Dunne v. Phoenicia LLC,
                 C.A. No. 2023-0987-BWD

   Dear Counsel:

           In this summary proceeding under 6 Del. C. § 18-305, the parties have, in

   large part, resolved Timothy James O’Neil-Dunne and MALT Family Trust’s

   (“Plaintiffs”) demands to inspect books and records of Phoenicia LLC (the

   “Company”) and its subsidiaries. They seek guidance, however, on a form of order

   to implement their resolution. The parties therefore have stipulated to submit the

   dispute to me for a final adjudication pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 350 1 via cross-motions

   1
     See Order Regarding Cross-Mots. at 1, Dkt. 32; see also 10 Del. C. § 350 (“The parties
   in any matter may stipulate to a final adjudication of the matter by a Magistrate of the Court
   of Chancery. In such a stipulation, the parties shall consent that the decision of the
   Magistrate shall have the same effect as a decision of a member of the Court of Chancery.
   Appeals from decisions of the Magistrate in a matter governed by such a stipulation shall
   be determined in all respects by the same procedural and substantive standards as are
   applicable to appeals from decisions of members of the Court of Chancery.”).
Timothy James O’Neil-Dunne v. Phoenicia LLC,
C.A. No. 2023-0987-BWD
April 12, 2024
Page 2 of 5

for entry of a final order (the “Motions”). See Pls.’ Mot. For Entry Of Order

Confirming Produc. Of Books And Rs. And Dismissing Action [hereinafter, “Pls.’

Mot.”], Dkt. 33; Def. Phoenicia LLC’s Cross-Mot. For Entry Of A Final Order

Dismissing This Action [hereinafter, “Def.’s Mot.”], Dkt. 35. 2

         The main disagreement presented in the Motions concerns how best to

confirm that the Company’s production is complete. See Pls.’ Mot. ¶¶ 2, 8-10; Def.’s

Mot. ¶¶ 3-4, 8-9. Plaintiffs contend that, because the Company claims it does not

possess certain documents sought in the demands, it “should be required to commit

to [that position] in an irrevocable and enforceable way.” Pls.’ Mot. ¶ 9. According

to Plaintiffs, that goal can be accomplished through a detailed catalog of all

documents in the Company’s productions. Id. ¶¶ 2, 10. Plaintiffs therefore propose

a thirty-two-page order that itemizes, by category, the hundreds of documents that

the Company has produced in response to the demands. See [Proposed] Order

Confirming Produc. Of Books And Rs. And Dismissing Action [hereinafter, Pls.’

Proposed Order] ¶¶ 1-2, Dkt. 33.

         The Company has rejected this approach, explaining that a detailed list of

produced documents in a final order is “atypical” and seems designed “more for

2
    The parties have agreed not to file replies and to forgo oral argument. See Dkt. 31.
Timothy James O’Neil-Dunne v. Phoenicia LLC,
C.A. No. 2023-0987-BWD
April 12, 2024
Page 3 of 5

publicity reasons than anything else.” Def.’s Mot. ¶ 8. The Company proposes,

instead, a recital “represent[ing] that it believes its production to be substantially

complete.” Order at 3, Dkt. 35. But Plaintiffs respond that the Company’s proposed

representation, as written, is so hedgy that it is “toothless.” Pls.’ Mot. ¶ 10.

       The parties will not be required to publicly catalog in the final order the

hundreds of documents that the Company has produced in response to the

demands—the production contains what it contains. But the Company must produce

all outstanding documents responsive to the demands within fourteen days. That

production should include documents from the Company’s Israeli subsidiary 3 as

well as a complete list of the Company’s majority-owned subsidiaries. 4 Within five

days of the completion of that production, the Company must certify that, to the best

of its knowledge after reasonable investigation, its production is complete with

respect to every category sought in the demands, with only those exceptions that the

3
  See Pls.’ Mot. ¶ 16 (“Phoenicia has stated through counsel that it has not yet produced
documents from its subsidiary based in Israel, AeroCRS and related companies. Phoenicia
has stated it intends to produce those documents. Plaintiffs request that Phoenicia be
ordered to do so in 14 days.”); Def.’s Mot. ¶ 10 (“Any remaining production, such as those
from the Israeli subsidiary, would be provided within two weeks, which Phoenicia believes
is manageable.”); Dkt. 13 at 2 (“[M]ost of the outstanding documents requested that remain
outstanding are in the hands of subsidiaries, including one in Israel.”).
4
  See Pls.’ Mot. ¶ 12 (“Phoenicia has agreed repeatedly, since the outset of this litigation,
to provide a list of its majority-owned subsidiaries. . . . A reliable list of subsidiaries is
necessary for Plaintiffs to understand the document production.”).
Timothy James O’Neil-Dunne v. Phoenicia LLC,
C.A. No. 2023-0987-BWD
April 12, 2024
Page 4 of 5

Company expressly identifies to Plaintiffs. A certification in that form should give

Plaintiffs sufficient comfort that the Company has not strategically withheld

documents from its productions.5

       Separately, Plaintiffs ask the Court to order the production of “top level

quarterly and annual financial statements for Flair [Airlines, Inc.]” (“Flair”), an

entity in which the Company owns a 49% stake. See Pls.’ Mot. ¶ 14; Pls.’ Proposed

Order ¶ 5. According to Plaintiffs, the Company has provided similar information

in the past, and because “Flair is a major part of [the Company’s] business,” this

information is “critical to enable O’Neil-Dunne to exercise his fiduciary duties on

behalf of Phoenicia.” Pls.’ Mot. ¶ 14. The Company objects to this request on the

5
  See, e.g., Teamsters Loc. 443 Health Servs. & Ins. Plan v. Chou, 2020 WL 5028065, at
*2 (Del. Ch. Aug. 24, 2020) (explaining that where a final order in a books and records
action requires certification that “[w]ith the exception of any documents included on the
privilege log, to the best of [its] knowledge after reasonable investigation, the Company’s
production is complete with respect to every category of documents that the Company is
required to produce,” “if [a company] failed to produce a document that it would
reasonably be expected to possess if a particular event had occurred, then the [P]laintiff[s]
[are] entitled to a reasonable inference that the event did not occur” (citations, footnote,
and internal quotation marks omitted)); Hughes v. Xiaoming Hu, 2020 WL 1987029, at *2
(Del. Ch. Apr. 27, 2020) (explaining that where a company stipulated that “any remaining
materials requested by Plaintiff either do not exist or had been withheld on privilege
grounds[,]” “if the Company failed to produce a document that it would reasonably be
expected to possess if a particular event had occurred, then the plaintiff is entitled to a
reasonable inference that the event did not occur” (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted)).
Timothy James O’Neil-Dunne v. Phoenicia LLC,
C.A. No. 2023-0987-BWD
April 12, 2024
Page 5 of 5

grounds that Flair “is not controlled by [the Company] and is not a subsidiary[,]”

and further cites confidentiality concerns. Def.’s Mot. ¶ 5 n.2.

      By raising this request through the guise of an implementing order, Plaintiffs

ask the Court to resolve the merits of their demands without a factual record.

Because Plaintiffs have not proven their entitlement to documents from Flair—the

Court has no basis to determine whether the Company controls these documents or

if they are subject to any confidentiality restrictions—the final order will not require

their production.

      The Court will enter an order consistent with the guidance provided above.

                                               Sincerely,

                                               /s/ Bonnie W. David

                                               Bonnie W. David
                                               Magistrate in Chancery

cc:   All counsel of record (by File & ServeXpress)