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: January 22, 2016
Date Decided: January 22, 2016
Brad Greenspan Kathaleen St. J. McCormick, Esquire
2995 Woodside Road, Suite 400 Daniel M. Kirshenbaum, Esquire
Woodside, CA 94062 Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor
100 North King Street
Gregory V. Varallo, Esquire Wilmington, DE 19899
Kevin M. Gallagher, Esquire
Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. A. Thompson Bayliss, Esquire
One Rodney Square Abrams & Bayliss LLP
920 North King Street 20 Montchanin Road, Suite 200
Wilmington, DE 19801 Wilmington, DE 19807
Kevin M. Coen, Esquire Daniel B. Rath, Esquire
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LP Rebecca L. Butcher, Esquire
1201 North Market Street Tyler O’Connell, Esquire
Wilmington, DE 19801 Landis Rath & Cobb LLP
919 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Brad D. Greenspan v. News Corporation, et al.,
Civil Action No. 9567-VCG
Dear Counsel and Mr. Greenspan:
I have Mr. Greenspan’s “Application for Certification of Interlocutory
Appeal,” which attaches an “Additional Motion 59(A) New Trial,” filed today. This
pleading is largely incomprehensible to me. There has been no “trial” in this matter;
to the extent Mr. Greenspan seeks to reargue my decision granting certain
Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss, I have already disposed of that motion by Letter
Opinion of this date, and further reargument is untimely. To the extent Mr.
Greenspan seeks an interlocutory appeal, the pleading states no grounds supporting
such an appeal, and I have attached an Order denying certification of an interlocutory
appeal.
Mr. Greenspan’s pleading seems in reality to be a request that I recuse myself
from this proceeding. His sole ground is that by Letter Opinion of January 6, 2016,
I referred to him as an “enthusiastic” pro se plaintiff, to which appellation he takes
offense, and from which he concludes I am biased against him.
To the latter point, I bear absolutely no ill-will or bias against Mr. Greenspan,
nor can I conceive of any reason why I cannot render an impartial adjudication in
this matter. As to the former, I do not consider enthusiasm to be a quality implying
censure, nor “enthusiastic” an epithet. I characterized the Plaintiff as “enthusiastic”
based upon the vigor, initiative, and even brio he has demonstrated by filing many,
many pro se pleadings in this Court. Mr. Greenspan points out that “enthusiasm,”
according to Merriam-Webster, implies not only eagerness, but “eager enjoyment,”
and argues strenuously that he takes no enjoyment from these proceedings. If so, it
is not the first time I have employed one word where another would have been more
appropriate. Nonetheless, despite my lack of erudition, no disrespect was meant. To
the extent this pleading may be characterized as a motion to recuse, that motion is
denied.
2
IT IS SO ORDERED. A separate order declining to certify an interlocutory
appeal is attached.
Sincerely,
/s/ Sam Glasscock III
Sam Glasscock III
3
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
BRAD D. GREENSPAN, :
:
Plaintiff, :
:
v. : C.A. No. 9567-VCG
:
ST
NEWS CORPORATION, 21 :
CENTURY FOX CORPORATION, :
NEWS AMERICA CORPORATION, :
WASHINGTON POST :
CORPORATION, SONY :
CORPORATION, SONY :
CORPORATION AMERICA, SONY :
MUSTIC ENTERTAINMENT INC., 550 :
DIGITAL MEDIA VENTURES, INC., :
SONY BROADBAND :
ENTERTAINMENT, INC., :
EUNIVERSE, INC., RGRD LAW LLC, :
NTAGEPOINT VENTURE :
PARTNERS, ORRICK HERRINGTON :
LAW LLC, EM1 MUSIC, WARNER :
MUSIC GROUP, IAC CORPORATION, :
MYSPACE, INC., ASKJEEVES, INC., :
JP MORGAN CHASE :
CORPORATION, REDPOINT :
PARTNERS CORPORATION, and :
ARENT FOX LAW LLC INC., :
:
Defendants. :
ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL
FROM INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
AND NOW, TO WIT, this 22nd day of January, 2016, the Plaintiff having
made application under Rule 42 of the Supreme Court for an order certifying an
appeal from the interlocutory order of this Court, dated January 6, 2016; and the
Court having found that such order lacks a substantial issue of material importance
that merits appellate review before a final judgment and that the none of the criteria
of Supreme Court Rule 42(b)(iii) apply;
IT IS ORDERED that certification to the Supreme Court of the State of
Delaware for disposition in accordance with Rule 42 of that Court, is DENIED.
/s/ Sam Glasscock III
Vice Chancellor