Zeta Med Device Fund LLC v. NVS Med, Inc.

COURT OF CHANCERY
OF THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
CHRISTIAN DOUGLAS WRIGHT LEONARD L. WILLIAMS JUSTICE CENTER
MAGISTRATE IN CHANCERY 500 NORTH KING STREET, SUITE 11400
WILMINGTON, DE 19801-3734

January 30, 2026

Michael W. Teichman, Esquire Alexandra D. Rogin, Esquire
Kashif Chowdhry, Esquire Paul S. Seward, Esquire
William J. Kassab, Esquire Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC
Parkowski, Guerke & Swayze, P.A. 222 Delaware Avenue, 7th Floor
909 Silver Lake Blvd., 1st Floor Wilmington, DE 19801
Dover, DE 19904

Re: Zeta Med Device Fund LLC v. NVS Med Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 2025-0170-CDW
Dear Counsel:
I write regarding plaintiff’s request for leave to move for partial

summary judgment.1 Defendants oppose the request.2 Although not

contemplated by the scheduling order,3 plaintiff submitted a short reply directed

to a purportedly new issue raised in defendants’ opposition.4

Summary judgment may be appropriate where “there is no genuine issue

as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a

1 Dkt. 29.

2 Dkt. 31.

3 See Dkt. 22 ¶ 7.

4 Dkt. 32.
C.A. No. 2025-0170-CDW
January 30, 2026
Page 2 of 3

matter of law.”5 A party does not have a “right” to summary judgment.6

“[T]he court may, in its discretion, deny summary judgment if it decides that it

is desirable to inquire into and develop the facts more thoroughly at trial in

order to clarify the law or its application.”7

I view motions for partial summary judgment with a jaundiced eye. Too

often they fail to conserve judicial resources in a meaningful fashion. After all,

only partial judgment is at stake—a case is going to trial however the court

resolves the motion. So it is incumbent on the party seeking leave to move for

partial summary judgment to explain how partial summary judgment will

simplify this case.

Plaintiff says partial summary judgment will “significantly conserv[e]

judicial resources[,]”8 but it does not explain how. Plaintiff does not even

assure the court that early summary judgment will help the parties narrow the

issues before trial. Instead, “may assist” is the most it offers.9 There is no

5 Ct. Ch. R. 56(c).

6 Telxon Corp. v. Meyerson, 802 A.2d 257, 262 (Del. 2002) (citations omitted).

7 In re El Paso Pipeline P’rs, L.P. Deriv. Litig., 2014 WL 2768782, at *9 (Del. Ch.

June 12, 2014) (citations omitted). See also The Williams Cos. v. Energy Transfer
LP, 2020 WL 3581095, at *11 (Del. Ch. July 2, 2020) (“[T]he court in its discretion
may determine that a trial record is necessary in the interests of justice.”).
8 Dkt. 29 at 1–2.

9 Id. at 2.
C.A. No. 2025-0170-CDW
January 30, 2026
Page 3 of 3

discussion, for example, about document or deposition discovery that will be

avoided.

I am also of the view that defendants’ statement in their opposition—for

the first time, according to plaintiff—that plaintiff has no right to payment

under the Notes “because the Notes were converted to common stock”10

counsels against granting leave, not for it as plaintiff argues.11 If there is no

evidence this conversion happened, as plaintiff contends,12 it is self-evident

some discovery is needed. Plaintiff’s assertion that the issue “can be readily

determined, without further discovery”13 is unavailing.

For these reasons, I deny plaintiff leave to move for partial summary

judgment. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,
/s/ Christian Douglas Wright
Magistrate in Chancery
CDW/slk

10 Dkt. 31 at 4.

11 Dkt. 32 at 2–3.

12 Id.

13 Id. at 3.