KDM Development Corp. v. The Consumer Protection Unit of the Dept. of Justice for the State of Delaware ( 2023 )

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: June 22, 2023
Date Decided: June 22, 2023
John W. Paradee, Esquire Ryan T. Costa, Esquire
Brian V. DeMott, Esquire State of Delaware Department of Justice
J. Garrett Miller, Esquire 820 N. French Street
6 South State Street Wilmington, DE 19801
Dover, DE 19901
Re: KDM Development Corp. v. The Consumer Protection Unit of
the Department of Justice for the State of Delaware,
C.A. No. 2023-0438-SG
Dear Counsel:
Petitioner seeks to quash a subpoena under both Rule 45(c)(3) of this Court
and 6 Del. C. §§ 2514-17.1 However, the rule and statute referenced contemplate a
subpoena authorized by a court, which is not the case here.2 This Court therefore
lacks statutory jurisdiction over the matter. Because Petitioner is free to seek
identical relief at law, traditional equitable jurisdiction is also lacking.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed without prejudice with the
understanding that a similar filing will be made in Superior Court.
1
See Verified Pet. Seeking to Quash Subpoenas and the Issuance of a Protective Order, Dkt. No.
1.
2
Per Respondent, the subpoena in question was authorized by the Department of Justice itself
pursuant to 29 Del. C. §§ 2504(4) and 2508(a). Opp. of the Delaware Department of Justice to
Pet. Seeking to Quash Subpoenas and the Issuance of a Protective Order ¶ 6, Dkt. No. 6.
Because I find that I am without equitable jurisdiction, I do not reach the merits of the case.
To the extent the foregoing requires an Order to take effect, IT IS SO
ORDERED.
Sincerely,
/s/ Sam Glasscock III
Vice Chancellor
2