Court Opinion

ID: 9404259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-22 17:04:32.267611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:12.997393
License: Public Domain

COURT OF CHANCERY
                                       OF THE
    SAM GLASSCOCK III            STATE OF DELAWARE                    COURT OF CHANCERY COURTHOUSE
     VICE CHANCELLOR                                                           34 THE CIRCLE
                                                                        GEORGETOWN, DELAWARE 19947

                              Date Submitted: June 22, 2023
                               Date Decided: June 22, 2023

    John W. Paradee, Esquire                        Ryan T. Costa, Esquire
    Brian V. DeMott, Esquire                        State of Delaware Department of Justice
    J. Garrett Miller, Esquire                      820 N. French Street
    6 South State Street                            Wilmington, DE 19801
    Dover, DE 19901

                 Re:    KDM Development Corp. v. The Consumer Protection Unit of
                        the Department of Justice for the State of Delaware,
                        C.A. No. 2023-0438-SG

Dear Counsel:

         Petitioner seeks to quash a subpoena under both Rule 45(c)(3) of this Court

and 6 Del. C. §§ 2514-17.1 However, the rule and statute referenced contemplate a

subpoena authorized by a court, which is not the case here.2 This Court therefore

lacks statutory jurisdiction over the matter. Because Petitioner is free to seek

identical relief at law, traditional equitable jurisdiction is also lacking.

         Accordingly, the petition is dismissed without prejudice with the

understanding that a similar filing will be made in Superior Court.

1
  See Verified Pet. Seeking to Quash Subpoenas and the Issuance of a Protective Order, Dkt. No.
1.
2
  Per Respondent, the subpoena in question was authorized by the Department of Justice itself
pursuant to 29 Del. C. §§ 2504(4) and 2508(a). Opp. of the Delaware Department of Justice to
Pet. Seeking to Quash Subpoenas and the Issuance of a Protective Order ¶ 6, Dkt. No. 6.
Because I find that I am without equitable jurisdiction, I do not reach the merits of the case.
    To the extent the foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO

ORDERED.

                                       Sincerely,

                                       /s/ Sam Glasscock III
                                       Vice Chancellor

                                   2