- 77 -
30, 1988. Petitioner stated that it would pay for the file.
Petitioner’s stated reason was that, “At the urging of our legal
counsel,” it wanted to have a copy of the housefile “to maintain
a ‘file copy’ * * * in the event some disaster strikes Wiland”.
Watson responded that Wiland has a file copy in the vault of a
bank in Fredericksburg, Va., and the safety procedures are
standard in the industry. Watson also pointed to the Contract
provision that “‘any computer work client desires to have done
with any names developed as a result of this contract with W&H
must be done at W&H or at a company designated by W&H during the
term of the agreement’”.
In September 1988, Watson told petitioner that petitioner
would receive a copy of its housefile after the Contract ended,
in May 1989.
Petitioner’s general counsel, James W. Curtis (hereinafter
sometimes referred to as Curtis), tried to get for petitioner a
copy of its housefile. Curtis was not successful in persuading
W&H to provide to petitioner a copy of its housefile. On January
19, 1989, Curtis formally notified Watson that petitioner was
invoking the arbitration provisions of the Contract and was going
to begin an arbitration action in order to obtain the copy of its
housefile. After an unsatisfactory response from W&H’s counsel,
on February 3, 1989, Curtis authorized another attorney to
prepare an arbitration petition for filing on petitioner’s
behalf. On February 9, 1989, Curtis spoke with Watson by
Page: Previous 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011