to resolve disputes of material fact when the cold record may not disclose the full story”). 55 . Super. Ct. Civ. R. 11(c)(1)(B). 56 . Super. Ct. Civ. R. 11(c). 57 . See DiSabatino v. Salicete, 671 A.2d 1344, 1351 (Del.1996). 58 . Id. at 1349 (citing Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 838, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994)). 59 . Id. at 1351 (citing Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 838, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994)). 60 . Super. Ct. Civ. R. 11(c)(1)(A). 61 . Fed.R.Civ.P. 11, Advisory Committee Note, 1993 Amendments ("Whether the matter should be decided solely on the basis of written submissions or should be scheduled for oral argument (or, indeed, for evidentiary presentation) will depend on the circumstances.”); In re DeVille, 361 F.3d 539, 553 (9th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). 62 . See Baker v. Alderman, 158 F.3d 516,
holding that an individual charged with criminal contempt is entitled to the full procedural protections afforded the defendant in any other criminal proceeding holding that due process encompasses the right to counsel in a civil contempt proceeding holding corporation and its president in criminal contempt because previous order of civil contempt had not been purged holding federal rule 11 contempt sanctions do not fall within ambit of state disciplinary rules and are not subject to reciprocal discipline holding that the advisory committee note to federal rule 11 clearly indicates that a criminal contempt process is not required