Background
Plaintiffs filed their complaint on July 1, 2026, and filed discovery requests on July 14. They sent the requests by certified mail the following day. USPS tracking showed delivery in Rocklin, California, on July 20, and plaintiffs later supplied signed return receipts. Defendants’ counsel also discussed the requests with plaintiffs’ counsel and sought an extension to respond.
Defendants removed the case to federal court on August 7, but it was voluntarily remanded to the Court of Chancery on September 10. After missing both the original response deadline and a self-selected extension, defendants argued that the discovery requests had never been properly served because the certified-mail return receipt had not initially been produced.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted plaintiffs’ motion to compel. It rejected defendants’ service argument as litigation-driven gamesmanship, finding that the certified-mail requests were properly served and that defendants had actual knowledge of both the action and the outstanding discovery. Giving defendants the benefit of the later July 20 delivery date, the Court found responses were due September 3.
Defendants waived non-privilege objections by failing to timely respond and by not addressing the requested remedy in their opposition. The Court ordered production of responsive documents within 30 days and complete written responses to interrogatories and requests for admission within seven days, permitting only privilege objections. It declined to deem the admissions conclusively admitted and awarded plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Key Takeaways
- Certified-mail service was sufficient despite defendants’ reliance on the absence of an initially produced signed return receipt.
- Untimely discovery responses waived objections other than privilege.
- The Court compelled responses, preserved merits adjudication of the requests for admission, and awarded fees and costs.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that parties cannot evade discovery through a technical service argument after acknowledging the requests and negotiating a response deadline. In the Court of Chancery, failure to timely assert discovery objections can result in waiver and fee shifting, even where the court stops short of imposing the most severe available sanction.