HURD v. ESPINOZA

No. 167, 2011.

34 A.3d 1084 (2011)

Mark V. HURD, Intervenor Below, Appellant, v. Ernesto ESPINOZA, Plaintiff Below, Appellee, and Hewlett-Packard Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant Below, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Decided: December 28, 2011.

Corrected: December 29, 2011.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Rolin P. Bissell, Esquire (argued), William D. Johnston, Esquire , Elena C. Norman, Esquire , James M. Yoch, Jr., Esquire and Pilar G. Kraman, Esquire of Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Of Counsel: Lawrence D. Lewis, Esquire , Dwight L. Armstrong, Esquire and Keith Paul Bishop, Esquire of Allen Matkins Leek Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP, Irvine, California and Amy Wintersheimer Findley, Esquire of Allen Matkins Leek Gamble Mallory & Natsis, LLP, San Diego, California, for Appellant Mark V. Hurd.

Blake A. Bennett, Esquire of Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Of Counsel: Felipe J. Arroyo, Esquire (argued), Gregory E. Del Gaizo, Esquire and Kevin S. Kim, Esquire of Robbins Umeda LLP, San Diego, California, for Appellee Ernesto Espinoza.

Peter J. Walsh, Jr., Esquire , Stephen C. Norman, Esquire , R. Christian Walker, Esquire and Matthew D. Stachel, Esquire of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware; Of Counsel: Steven M. Schatz, Esquire (argued), Boris Feldman, Esquire and Katherine L. Henderson, Esquire of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, Palo Alto, California and Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Esquire of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee Hewlett-Packard Company.

Before STEELE, Chief Justice, BERGER, JACOBS and RIDGELY, Justices and VAUGHN, President Judge, constituting the Court en Banc.


BERGER, Justice:

In this appeal we consider whether a letter concerning allegedly inappropriate conduct by a corporate executive should be kept under seal. The letter was attached to a complaint seeking books and records relating to the corporate executive's resignation.1 Neither the corporation nor the stockholder plaintiff argues that the letter is confidential. The corporate executive, who was allowed to intervene, contends that the...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases