EFiled: Oct 03 2014 12:34PM EDT
Transaction ID 56128155
Case No. 5957-VCN
COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
JOHN W. NOBLE 417 SOUTH STATE STREET
VICE CHANCELLOR DOVER, DELAWARE 19901
TELEPHONE: (302) 739-4397
FACSIMILE: (302) 739-6179
October 3, 2014
Thad J. Bracegirdle, Esquire Seth J. Reidenberg, Esquire
Wilks, Lukoff & Bracegirdle, LLC Tybout, Redfearn & Pell
1300 North Grant Avenue, Suite 100 750 Shipyard Drive, Suite 400
Wilmington, DE 19806 Wilmington, DE 19801
Mr. Christophe Laudamiel DreamAir LLC
313 West 19th Street, Apt. 32 c/o Christophe Laudamiel, President
New York, NY 10011 210 11th Avenue, Suite 1002
cl@leschristophs.com New York, NY 10001
cl@dreamair.mobi
Paul D. Brown, Esquire
Chipman Brown Cicero & Cole, LLP
1007 North Orange Street, Suite 1110
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Matthew v. Laudamiel, et al.
C.A. No. 5957-VCN
Date Submitted: September 9, 2014
Dear Mr. Laudamiel and Counsel:
Plaintiff Stewart Matthew has moved for reargument of that portion of the
Court’s Letter Opinion and Order of July 21, 2014,1 that granted Fläkt Woods
1
Matthew v. Laudamiel, 2014 WL 3586594 (Del. Ch. July 21, 2014).
Matthew v. Laudamiel, et al.
C.A. No. 5957-VCN
October 3, 2014
Page 2
Group S.A.’s (“Fläkt Woods”) motion to compel discovery into Plaintiff’s scenting
activities after dissolution of Aeosphere. That requires the Court to consider
whether its decision was influenced by a misunderstanding of material fact or a
misapplication of law.2 The Court did not misunderstand Plaintiff’s claims or, in a
material way, how he wanted to define the scope of discovery. Instead, the
question was the scope of discovery to which Fläkt Woods is entitled. 3 The
Court’s conclusion was driven by the liberal standard for discovery. It may be that
the discovery will not be useful, but that is not a conclusion that the Court can now
draw.
The Plaintiff’s concerns with the Court’s application of law involved
mitigation. Again, the information sought may not be especially probative, but,
especially at the discovery stage, the scope must be allowed to acknowledge that
similar substitute employment or compensation arrangements—i.e., not just those
that are identical—may be an appropriate measure.4
2
See, e.g., Salgado v. Mobile Servs. Int’l, LLC, 2012 WL 2903970, at *1 (Del. Ch.
July 11, 2012).
3
It is not clear why Fläkt Woods’ discovery should be restricted by reference to
Mr. Laudamiel’s Answer to Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Verified Complaint.
4
The necessary flexibility here makes drawing rigid lines difficult.
Matthew v. Laudamiel, et al.
C.A. No. 5957-VCN
October 3, 2014
Page 3
Accordingly, the Motion for Reargument is denied.5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
/s/ John W. Noble
JWN/cap
cc: Register in Chancery-K
5
It may be that Plaintiff will not value his subsequent employment efforts, but this
does not necessarily preclude Fläkt Woods from using this information to show an
offset or otherwise to rebut Plaintiff’s analysis.