Legal Opinion

Dow Chemical Canada Inc. v. HRD Corp.

District Court, D. Delaware

Decided July 30, 2009No. Civil Action No. 05-023-JJFPublished

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

FARNAN, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is the Motion Of Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff HRD Corporation For Discovery Abuse Sanctions (D.I. 247). For the reasons discussed, the Court will deny HRD’s Motion and award Dow the costs of defending HRD’s Motion.

I. BACKGROUND

This litigation stems from a failed business relationship between Dow Chemical Canada Inc. and The Dow Chemical Company (collectively “Dow”) on one side and HRD Corporation (“HRD”) on the other side. In short, the parties contracted to, first, jointly develop certain polyethylene wax products and, second, at the…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1991
  2. Lefteri Poulis and Athena Poulis, His Wife v. State Farm Fire and Casualty CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1984
  3. In Re Elonex Phase II Power Management LitigationDistrict Court, D. Delaware · 2003

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API