You are on page 1of 2

Case 1:19-cv-00447-RGA Document 74 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 1511

Akron | Atlanta | Beijing | Belize | Boston | British Virgin Islands| Canada

| Cape Town | Charlotte | Cheyenne | Cincinnati | Cleveland | Curitiba| Dallas
| Djibouti | Dubai| Guangzhou | Hartford | Houston | Hong Kong | Istanbul
| Jericho | Johannesburg | Las Vegas | London| Los Angeles | Miami | Mexico City
| Milan | Moscow | Naples | New York | Nyon | Orange County | Orlando| Osaka
| Panama City | Paris | Philadelphia | Phoenix | Portland | Rome| San Diego
| San Francisco | Seadoone |Seattle | Seychelles | Shanghai | St. Petersburg
| Tel Aviv | Tokyo | Trinidad and Tobago | Washington D.C.| Wilmington


February 16, 2021

The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building
844 N. King Street
Unit 9
Room 6325
Wilmington, DE 19801-3555

Re: Winfield v. Eloxx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 19-00447-RGA

Dear Judge Andrews:

I represent Plaintiff John Winfield (“Plaintiff”) in the above-referenced matter. I write to request
that the Court issue an Order granting Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file his First Amended Complaint
(D.I. 65-68). On January 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15, for leave to
file his First Amended Complaint. In support of the motion, Plaintiff submitted evidence of secret
communications between Defendants James Schmidt and Barry Honig in which Schmidt and Rector
conspired to induce Plaintiff to tender his Series A Preferred Stock certificate for conversion into
common shares at $0.25 per share while actively concealing the lower conversion price offered to Honig
of $0.10. The active concealment of this lower conversion price resulted in breach of Defendant Eloxx
Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s (“Eloxx”) contractual obligations to Plaintiff. The relevant email communication
was produced for the first time on December 17, 2020 and Plaintiff timely moved for leave to amend on
January 29, 2021.1 As set forth in Plaintiff’s motion papers, granting the motion for leave to amend will
not result in any material change in the scope of discovery.2

Defendants’ papers in opposition to the motion were due on February 12, 2021. In and around
the week of February 8 to 12, 2021, counsel for Eloxx and Rector advised counsel for Plaintiff that
Eloxx and Rector were considering not opposing the motion for leave to amend. Counsel for Honig did
not communicate his position regarding the motion. Nonetheless, none of the Defendants filed papers in
opposition on February 12, 2021 or otherwise sought an extension of time to respond. Accordingly,
Defendants have waived any opposition to the motion for leave to amend and the Court should enter an
Order granting the motion. Plaintiff submits herewith a proposed order.

The parties participated in Court-ordered mediation on January 8, 2021 but were unable to reach a settlement.
Although the First Amended Complaint, itself, will not materially affect discovery, please note that Plaintiff expects to
contact the Court’s case manager regarding a discovery dispute regarding Mr. Honig’s failure to produce relevant documents
and the scheduling of depositions.

1000 N. West Street |Suite 1200 | Wilmington, DE 19801

Direct Tel.: +1.302.367.7903
Case 1:19-cv-00447-RGA Document 74 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 1512
The Honorable Richard G. Andrews
February 16, 2021
Page 2 of 2
I am available at the convenience of the Court should Your Honor require anything further.

Respectfully submitted,

William R. Firth, III, Esq. (Bar No. 4356)


cc: Sean M. Brennecke, Esquire (by CM/ECF)

David S. Eagle, Esquire (by CM/ECF)
Kevin M. Gallagher, Esquire (by CM/ECF)

1000 N. West Street |Suite 1200 | Wilmington, DE 19801

Direct Tel.: +1.302.367.7903

You might also like