good cause standard in Delaware

2026Holmes contends there is “an undisclosed ‘case participant list’ identifying Defense witnesses with the designation ‘AG’” which he feels is “indicative of a possible undisclosed connection between the witness and Attorney General’s office.” 36 35F These claims are unsupported, conclusory and fail to establish any compelling reason to justify his discovery requests. 37 36F 34 Holmes, 2016 WL 4413150 , at *1 (citing Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1198 (Del. 1996) (materials requested “[were] not discoverable under a good cause standard because [defendant] has shown no compelling reason for thei

2016Ct. May 3, 2006) 2 Id. (citing Deputy v. Taylor, 19 F.3d 1485, 1493 (3d Cir. 1994). 3 Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1198 (Del. 1996) (materials requested “[were] not discoverable under a good cause standard because [defendant] has shown no compelling reason for their discovery”); see also State v. Cabrera, 2008 WL 3853998 , *4 (Del.

2023The Rule now allows the trial judge to establish deadlines and protocols for each case, and trial judges continue to use the good cause standard.”). 92 In re Asbestos Litig., 228 A.3d 676 , 681 (Del. 2020). 93 Id. at 682 (quoting Moses v. Drake, 109 A.3d 562, 566 (Del. 2015)). 24 The Court is satisfied that good cause exists under the unusual circumstances of this case.

2022While J.C. appears to have been generally diligent in other aspects of this case, the possibility of seeking 10 Dkt. 460. 11 Id. 12 In re Asbestos Litig., 228 A.3d 676 , 681–82 (Del. 2020) (quoting Moses v. Drake, 109 A.3d 562, 566 (Del. 2015)) (applying a good cause standard to a request to delay trial); see also Coleman v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, 902 A.2d 1102, 1107 (Del. 2006) (applying a good cause standard to a motion to extend a discovery deadline). 4 interlocutory appeal was entirely foreseeable.

2021Although a case may be dismissed for failure to timely effect service of process, this rule is not absolute as it affords trial courts discretion in permitting service beyond the 120 day limit upon a showing of good cause.’ By allowing this, the rule seeks “to balance the need for speedy, just and efficient litigation with a desire to provide litigants their right to a day in court.” When reviewing a court’s decision to dismiss under rule 4(j), the Delaware Supreme Court interpreted the good cause standard to “require a showing of excusable neglect, by demonstration of good faith on part of th

2021The purpose of the good cause exception is to allow the Superior Court to seek balance between a need for “speedy, just and efficient litigation with a desire to provide litigants their right to a day in court.”14 “Good cause” requires a showing of “excusable neglect” by demonstrating “good faith on the part of the party seeking an enlargement and some reasonable basis for noncompliance within the time specified in the rules.”15 An act of neglect is one in which a reasonably prudent person may act under specific circumstances.16 When determining if an act of “neglect [is] ‘excusable,’ all surr

2025Motors (Hughes) S’holder Litig., 897 A.2d 162, 168 (Del. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 74 ADM Trade Res., 2023 WL 6854462 , at *5. 75 I say the relief “may” be granted because the parties dispute whether the good cause standard can ever be satisfied at the pleading stage.

2023The good cause standard “requires something more than speculation”—“a petitioner has not shown good cause under § 279 if it does no more than speculate that the dissolved corporation may still have undistributed assets.” Id. at *4.5 Through the lens of a motion to dismiss, the petition must plead facts that, Motor Co., 115 A. 312, 315 (Del.

2022While J.C. appears to have been generally diligent in other aspects of this case, the possibility of seeking 10 Dkt. 460. 11 Id. 12 In re Asbestos Litig., 228 A.3d 676 , 681–82 (Del. 2020) (quoting Moses v. Drake, 109 A.3d 562, 566 (Del. 2015)) (applying a good cause standard to a request to delay trial); see also Coleman v. PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC, 902 A.2d 1102, 1107 (Del. 2006) (applying a good cause standard to a motion to extend a discovery deadline). 4 interlocutory appeal was entirely foreseeable.

2021The purpose of the good cause exception is to allow the Superior Court to seek balance between a need for “speedy, just and efficient litigation with a desire to provide litigants their right to a day in court.”14 “Good cause” requires a showing of “excusable neglect” by demonstrating “good faith on the part of the party seeking an enlargement and some reasonable basis for noncompliance within the time specified in the rules.”15 An act of neglect is one in which a reasonably prudent person may act under specific circumstances.16 When determining if an act of “neglect [is] ‘excusable,’ all surr

2016Ct. May 3, 2006) 2 Id. (citing Deputy v. Taylor, 19 F.3d 1485, 1493 (3d Cir. 1994). 3 Dawson v. State, 673 A.2d 1186, 1198 (Del. 1996) (materials requested “[were] not discoverable under a good cause standard because [defendant] has shown no compelling reason for their discovery”); see also State v. Cabrera, 2008 WL 3853998 , *4 (Del.

2014Id. at 1104. 33 .