Brad D. Greenspan v. News Corporation ( 2015 )

COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE SAM GLASSCDCK 1:! STATE OF DELAWARE COUR'I' or Cl*]ANClERY COUR'I'E IOUSl-l Vl(.‘[£C1lAi\‘C[-‘.I.LOR 34 TI tI-l CIRCLE-I GEORGI'i'I'OWN, DELAWARE I994? Date Submitted: June 5, 2015 Date Decided: June 8, 2015 Brad Greenspan Kathaleen St. .1. McCormick, Esquire 2995 Woodside Rd, 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. Gaiiagher, Esquire Christopher H. Lyons, Esquire A. Thompson Bayliss, Esquire Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. Abrams & Bayliss LLP One Rodney Square 20 Montchanin Rd., Suite 200 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19807 Wilmington, DE 19801 Daniei B. Rath, Esquire Kevin M. Coen, Esquire Rebecca L. Butcher, Esquire Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnel] LP Tyler O’Connell, Esquire 1201 North Market Street Landis Rath & Cobb LLP Wilmington, DE 19801 919 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801 RE: Brad D. Greenspan v. News Corporation, 81‘ 611. CA. No. 9567—VCG Dear Mr. Greenspan and Counsel: I have Mr. Greenspan’s Motion “For Relief Under Rule 59(1), 60(a), 60(b)(1), 60(b)(2), 60(b)(5), 60(b)(6).” This Motion refers to my oral ruling of May 28, 2015, which Mr. Greenspan characterizes as “alien/[ing] Defendants to proceed to brief the Motion to Dismiss terminating the iitigation while eliminating all the pending motions that Plaintiffhas "filed and which the Supreme Court ruied ‘pending’ in its April 13, 2015 ruling.” As I understand Mr. Greenspan’s Motion, it is based on a fundamentai misunderstanding of my oral ruling of May 28. Mr. Greenspan apparently labors under the misconception that I wiii not consider his Motion to Disqualify filed on March 24, 2015. However, pursuant to my oral ruling, Mr. Greenspan’s Motion to Disqualify is to be briefed together with the Dei’endants’ Motion to Dismiss, and I will hear both motions and oral argument thereon at the same time. Mr. Greenspan also apparently seeks reconsideration of my denial of his Exceptions to Master Legrow’s Final Report dated April 2, 2015. I remain baffled by those Exceptions, which I denied in a Letter Order on May 8, 2015. The Master’s Final Report involved Mr. Greenspan’s Motion for Recusal, which the Master granted in the Final "Report. As a result, this matter was reassigned to me for all purposes. It appears that Mr. Greenspan meant to take exception to a scheduling order referenced in the Master’s Final Report, although his Exceptions did not so state. If that is the case, his Exceptions are moot, since I extended the time within which he was permitted to respond to certain outstanding motions made by the Defendants, beyond the time permitted by the Master’s scheduling order. In any event, to the extent Mr. Greenspan seeks relief from my Letter Order of May 8, 2015, that request is untimely. For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Greenspan’s Motion for Relief “Under Rule 59(t), 60(a), 60(b)(1), 60(b)(2), 60(b)(5), 60(b)(6)” is DENIED. To the extent that the foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO ORDERED. Mr. Greenspan has also sought certification of an interlocutory appeal of the rulings in my letter dated April 29, 2015. I have attached an order denying that request. Sincerely, /s/ Sam Glasscock III Vice Chancellor cc: Register in Chancery IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE BRAD D. GREENSPAN, Plaintiff, v. CA. NO. 9567~VCG NEWS CORPORATION, 215'“ CENTURY FOX CORPORATION, NEWS AMERICA CORPORATION, WASHINGTON POST CORPORATION, SONY CORPORATION, SONY CORPORATION AMERICA, SONY MUSIC ENTERTAINMENT INC, 550 DIGITAL MEDIA VENTURES, INC, SONY BROADBAND ENTERTAINMENT, INC, EUNIVERSE, INC, NEWS CORPORATION, 21Sr CENTURY FOX, EUNIVERSE, INC, RGRD LAW LLC, NTAGEPOINT VENTURE PARTNERS, ORRICK HERRINGTON LAW LLC, EMI MUSIC, WARNER MUSIC GROUP, IAC CORPORATION, MYSPACE, INC, ASKJEEVES, INC, JP MORGAN CHASE CORPORATION, REDPOINT PARTNERS CORPORATION, and ARENT FOX LAW LLC INC, VVVVVVVVVUUUUVUVVVUVVVVV Defendants. ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM INTERLOCUTORY ORDER This 8th day ofJune 2015, 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 April 29, 2015, and the Court having found that such order fails to decide a substantial issue Of material importance that merits appellate review before a final judgment, that none of the criteria of Rule 42(b)(iii) apply, that Plaintiff has failed to include in the application for interlocutory review a statement that the applicant has determined in good faith that the application meets the criteria set forth, as required by Rule 42(b)(iii), and that the application is untimely; IT IS ORDERED that with respect to this Court’s Order of April 29, 2015, the Plaintiff’s request for certification of an interlocutory appeal is DENIED. /s/Sarn Glasscock III Vice Chancellor