Free Opening Brief in Support - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 1 of 19

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE VOITH PAPER GMBH & CO. KG Plaintiff, v. JOHNSONFOILS, INC. Defendant. : : : : : : : : : Civil Action No. 07-226-JJF

JOHNSONFOILS, INC.'S OPENING BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO EXTEND THE DISCOVERY PERIOD AND TO EXTEND THE DURATION OF VOITH'S WITNESS DEPOSITIONS George H. Seitz, III (DE #667) [email protected] Patricia Pyles McGonigle (DE #3126) [email protected] Kevin A. Guerke (DE#4096) [email protected] Seitz, Van Ogtrop & Green, P.A. 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 P.O. Box 68 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 888-0600 - and Anthony S. Volpe John J. O'Malley Ryan W. O'Donnell Volpe and Koenig, P.C. United Plaza, Suite 1600 30 South 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 568-6400

Attorneys for Defendant JohnsonFoils, Inc.

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 2 of 19

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. II. III. IV. V. VI. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................ NATURE AND STAGE OF THE RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS ...................... SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................................................................ STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS ............................................................. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................... CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................

i

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 3 of 19

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Pages

O'Connell v. Hyatt Hotels, 357 F.2d 152 (1st Cir. 2004)................................................ Scheidecker v. Arvig Enters, 139 F.R.D. 630 (D. Minn. 2000)....................................... Rules Cited Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) ............................................................................................................ Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(b)(2)........................................................................................................ FEDR.CIV.P. 30(d)(1) ........................................................................................................

ii

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 4 of 19

I.

INTRODUCTION JohnsonFoils, Inc. ("JohnsonFoils") moves for an Order extending the

discovery period for a period of ninety (90) days. Pursuant to the August 3, 2007 Scheduling Order, the deadline for completion of fact discovery in this matter is April 30, 2008. JohnsonFoils has good cause for this request, as Voith has

continually impeded JohnsonFoils efforts to conduct discovery in a timely manner. The following are exemplary of Voith's prejudicial actions in this matter: (1) Throughout the course of discovery in this manner, Voith has implemented unilateral restrictions on persons who can review its documents in disregard of the express requirements Local Rule 26.2; (2) Voith produced nearly 100,000 pages of documents (over 75% of Voith's total production) on the eve of or after the February 15, 2008 deadline for document production; (3) Over 100,000 pages of the 129,851 pages of documents Voith produced in this matter are in German and Voith refuses to provide English language translations of such documents; and (4) Voith waited until March 11, 2008 to notify JohnsonFoils that six (6) of the inventors of the Patents-in-Suit are no longer employed by Voith, despite knowing JohnsonFoils' intention to depose these witnesses as early as August 10, 2007.

-1-

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 5 of 19

JohnsonFoils also respectfully requests additional time beyond the seven (7) hours provided in Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(1) to take the depositions of Voith's witnesses as Voith has demanded the presence of a translator. II. NATURE AND STAGE OF THE RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS On April 27, 2007, Voith Paper GmbH & Co. KG ("Voith") filed this action alleging that JohnsonFoils, Inc. ("JohnsonFoils") infringed its U.S. Patent Nos. 5,718,805 and 5,972,168 ("Patents-in-Suit") (D.I. 1). JohnsonFoils served its

Answer, Affirmative Defenses and Counterclaims in response to Voith's Complaint on August 13, 2007 (D.I. 19). On August 3, 2007, the Court issued its Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) Scheduling Order (D.I. 17), setting the trial date for November 5, 2008, and ordering the parties to complete document production by February 15, 2008 and fact discovery by April 30, 2008. On August 10, 2007, JohnsonFoils served Voith with the following notices of deposition: (1) Hans-Jungen Wulz; (2) Wilhelm Wanke; (3) Albrecht Meinecke; (4) Werner Kade; (5) Klaus Henseler; (6) Dieter Egelhof; (7) and Rudolph Buck through Else Buck. These Notices are collectively attached Exhibit A. The foregoing

individuals are all co-inventors of the Patents-in-Suit. Before JohnsonFoils could file its notice of service for these deposition notices, Voith insisted that JohnsonFoils immediately withdrawal all deposition notices, alleging that they were premature. See Exhibit B. JohnsonFoils notified Voith that the notices would be withdrawn and rescheduled. See Exhibit C.

-2-

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 6 of 19

On August 13, 2007, JohnsonFoils served its First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things on Voith (Nos. 1-14) (D.I. 32). Voith served its Objections and Responses to JohnsonFoils' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things on September 17, 2007 (D.I. 34). On October 4, 2007, JohnsonFoils served its Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things on Voith (Nos. 15-32) (D.I. 40). Voith served its Objections and Responses to JohnsonFoils' Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things on November 8, 2007. On December 17, 2007, JohnsonFoils filed a Motion to Compel Voith to produce document in response to JohnsonFoils First Requests for Production of Documents (D.I. 49 and 50). Voith filed its Opposition Brief on January 9, 2008 (D.I. 58), and JohnsonFoils filed its Reply Brief on January 14, 2008 (D.I. 61). This Court has not yet decided JohnsonFoils' Motion to Compel Production of Documents. On December 18, 2007, Voith filed a Motion for Protective Order requesting an order to prohibit the disclosure of Voith's "Highly Confidential Information" to its competitors (D.I. 52 and 53). JohnsonFoils filed its Opposition Brief on January 9, 2008 (D.I. 57), and Voith filed its Reply Brief on January 16, 2008 (D.I. 67). This Court has not yet decided Voith's Motion for Protective Order. On January 14, 2008, JohnsonFoils served its Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things on Voith (Nos. 33-85) (D.I. 60). Voith served

-3-

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 7 of 19

its Objections and Responses to JohnsonFoils' Third Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things on February 15, 2008 (D.I. 96). On March 13, 2008, JohnsonFoils re-served Voith with the following notices of deposition: (1) Hans-Jungen Wulz (D.I. 101); (2) Wilhelm Wanke (D.I. 98); (3) Albrecht Meinecke (D.I. 99); (4) Werner Kade (D.I. 105); (5) Klaus Henseler (D.I. 97) (6) Dieter Egelhof (D.I. 100); and (7) Rudolph Buck through Else Buck (D.I. 102). JohnsonFoils also served the following additional notices of deposition: (8) Karl Bock (D.I. 103); (9) Kurt Brandauer (D.I. 104); and (10) Notice of 30(b)(6) Deposition of Voith (D.I. 106). These notices are collectively attached as Exhibit D. On March 14, 2008, Voith served JohnsonFoils with the following notices of deposition: (1) Douglas McPherson; (2) Vaughn Wildfong; (3) Jay Shands; (4) James A. Ronning; and (5) 30(b)(6) Notice of Deposition of JohnsonFoils (D.I. 107). On March 14, 2008, Voith also served subpoenas for deposition and the production of documents on the following third parties: (1) AstenJohnson, Inc.; (2) AbitibiBowater, Inc. (issued by the Eastern District of Tennessee); (3)

AbitibiBowater, Inc. (issued by the District of Arizona); and (4) International Paper Company (D.I. 107 and 108). On March 24, 2008, third-party, AstenJohnson, Inc., filed a Motion for Protective Order asking this Court to prohibit the discovery requested in Voith's subpoena of AstenJohnson, Inc., and to the extent that the discovery requested in the subpoenas of AbitibiBowater, Inc. and International Paper Company relate to

-4-

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 8 of 19

AstenJohnson (D.I. 110 and 111). This Court has not yet decided AstenJohnson's Motion for Protective Order. On March 25, 2008, JohnsonFoils filed a Motion for a Protective Order asking this Court to prohibit the discovery requested in Voith's subpoenas of AstenJohnson, Inc., AbitibiBowater, Inc., and International Paper Company to the extent that such discovery relates to JohnsonFoils (D.I. 112 and 113). This Court has not yet decided JohnsonFoils' Motion for Protective Order. III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT 1. JohnsonFoils has good cause warranting extension a ninety (90) day

extension of the discovery period due to: (1) Voith's unreasonable restrictions on its production of documents; (2) Voith's production of nearly 100,000 pages of documents (over 75% of Voith's total document production) on the eve of or after the February 15, 2008 deadline for production of documents; (3) the large quantity of foreign language documents that Voith produced on the eve of or after the February 15, 2008 document production deadline; and (4) Voith's belated notification that only one (1) of the seven (7) inventors of the Patents-in-Suit is employed by Voith, and Voith's refusal to provide a last known address for the remaining six (6) inventors. Voith's discovery tactics are purposefully employed to impede

JohnsonFoils' discovery progress and make compliance with the April 30, 2008 deadline an undue burden. 2. JohnsonFoils should be entitled to additional time beyond the seven (7)

hours provided in Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(1) to take the depositions of Voith's witnesses.

-5-

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 9 of 19

Voith has required the presence of a translator at such depositions despite its acknowledgement that the witnesses understand and speak English. Based on the duplication of effort required to ask and answer questions using a translator, JohnsonFoils respectfully requests that this Court grant it two (2) days (i.e., fourteen (14) hours) for each of Voith's witness depositions. IV. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS 1. Pursuant to the Court's August 3, 2007 Scheduling Order, the parties

were ordered to complete document discovery by February 15, 2008 and all fact discovery by April 30, 2008. (D.I. 17). 2. On August 13, 2007, JohnsonFoils served its First Set of Requests for

Production of Documents and Things on Voith (Nos. 1-14) (D.I. 32). Voith served its Objections and Responses to JohnsonFoils' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things on September 17, 2007 (D.I. 34). 3. On October 4, 2007, JohnsonFoils served its Second Set of Requests for

Production of Documents and Things on Voith (Nos. 15-32) (D.I. 40). Voith served its Objections and Responses to JohnsonFoils' Second Set of Requests for Production of Documents and Things on November 8, 2007. 4. On November 7, 2007, Voith produced documents totaling 5,391 pages

(VTH000001-VTH005391), but Voith unilaterally added the following preconditions which go well beyond the requirements of Local Rule 26.2. Furthermore, until the terms of the protective order are agreed upon, the enclosed documents are provided subject to the additional precondition that no attorney at your firm involved in patent related matters before any patent granting authority or agency anywhere in -6-

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 10 of 19

the world relating to the subject matter of this lawsuit, including without limitation matters on behalf of JohnsonFoils, Inc. and/or its affiliated companies anywhere in the world, e.g., AstenJohnson, Inc. is permitted access to any documents designated "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL," or any information contained therein. Accordingly, any individual views documents designated HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, or to whom any information contained therein is disclosed, is hereby noticed that they are precluded from participation in the above described patent related matters. See Exhibit E. 5. On November 8, 2007, JohnsonFoils advised Voith that it did not

accede to Voith's unilateral demands, and it was returning the documents unopened. See Exhibit F. 6. On November 19 and 26, 2007, JohnsonFoils requested that Voith

immediately produce its documents in accordance with Local Rule 26.2, and without its extraneous limitations. See Exhibits G and H. 7. On November 26, 2007, Voith reiterated that it would only produce its

documents under its unilateral terms. See Exhibit I. 8. On December 7, 2007, JohnsonFoils again requested that Voith

produce pursuant to Local Rule 26.2 or it would move to compel Voith's production. See Exhibit J. On December 10, 2007, Voith again refused to produce its documents in accordance with Local Rule 26.2. See Exhibit K. 9. Between December 31, 2008 and January 4, 2008, Voith made three

separate document productions of non-confidential documents totaling 7,718 pages of documents (VTH000001-VTH000637; VTH022817-024998; VTH24999-

VTH27511; VTH 27512-VTH29898). See Exhibit L.

-7-

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 11 of 19

10.

On February 15, 2008, on the eve of the deadline for document

production, Voith produced its document nos. VTH000001-VTH088942, which included over 59,000 pages of new documents (VTH029899-VTH88942). See

Exhibit M. Voith's February 18, 2008 letter again attempted to place limitation on these documents beyond the requirement of Local Rule 26.2. 11. On February 22, 2008, JohnsonFoils advised Voith that it did not

accede to Voith's unilateral demands, and returned the documents unopened. See Exhibit N. 12. On March 7, 2008, nearly one month after the close of document

production, Voith produced its document nos. VTH000001-VTH127328, which included over 38,000 pages of new documents (VTH088942-127328). See Exhibit O. Voith's March 7, 2008 letter again attempted to place limitation on these documents beyond the requirement of Local Rule 26.2. 13. In order to avoid further delay and prejudice to JohnsonFoils, on

March 12, 2008, JohnsonFoils clarified that it would accept Voith's production in accordance with Rule 26.2, and would reject any other terms that Voith unilaterally imposes on such documents. See Exhibit P. 14. On March 14, 2008, one month after the close of document production,

Voith produced its document nos. VTH000001-VTH129851, which included over 2,500 pages of new documents (VTH 127329 ­ 129851). See Exhibit Q. Voith's March 14, 2008 letter again attempted to place limitation on these documents beyond the requirement of Local Rule 26.2.

-8-

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 12 of 19

15.

On March 19, 2008, JohnsonFoils again clarified that it would accept

Voith's production in accordance with Rule 26.2, and would reject any other terms that Voith unilaterally imposes on such documents. See Exhibit R. 16. As demonstrated above, Voith produced nearly 100,000 pages of

documents totaling over 75% percent of its document production on the eve of or after the deadline for document production in this matter. To the extent that Voith produced any documents prior to the February 15, 2008 deadline, it only did so by placing unilateral restrictions on such documents which go well beyond the requirement of Local Rule 26.2. 17. On March 10, 2008 JohnsonFoils served Notices of Deposition on

Voith, notifying Voith of its intent to depose nine (9) individuals, and one (1) corporate representative pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6). (D.I. 97-106). See

Exhibit D. Seven (7) of the nine (9) individual deponents were initially served in JohnsonFoils' August 2007 deposition notices (see Exhibit A). 18. On March 11, 2008 Voith first notified JohnsonFoils that only three (3)

of the deponents were currently employed by Voith and that none of the deponents spoke English as a first language. See Exhibit S. Voith recommended that

JohnsonFoils arrange to have an interpreter present for the depositions and required that the depositions take place at its attorneys' offices in Reston, Virginia. See Id. 19. On March 12, 2008 JohnsonFoils requested that Voith provide the last

known address of the remaining six (6) former employees identified in JohnsonFoils

-9-

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 13 of 19

March 14, 2008 deposition notices. See Exhibit T. Voith refused to provide this information, contending that German law prohibits disclosure of this information, but has failed to point to any specific law. See Exhibit U. 20. On March 19, 2008, JohnsonFoils advised Voith that the depositions of

Voith's witnesses would take place in Delaware where Voith brought this suit. Exhibit R. JohnsonFoils also requested the identification of the German law that Voith asserts prevents the disclose of the last known address of its six former employees. Id. 21. On March 20, 2008, Voith modified its notification to JohnsonFoils by

stating that the deponents "are willing to testify in English to the extent they can," but that an interpreter would be required in the event a witness could not understand a question. See Exhibit V. 22. During an April 1, 2008 telephone conference between the parties,

JohnsonFoils disagreed that German law prevents the disclosure of the last known address of Voith's former employees. Voith agreed to contact its former employees and determine whether there was any objection to disclosing this information. See Exhibit W. 23. On April 1 and 2, 2008, JohnsonFoils advised Voith that it would

postpone its depositions of Voith's witnesses due to the large quantity of foreign language documents that require translations and requested that Voith join it in a motion to extend the April 30, 2008 discovery deadline. See Exhibits W and X.

- 10 -

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 14 of 19

JohnsonFoils' request is warranted based on the following hardships that Voith imposed on JohnsonFoils' ability to proceed with discovery in this matter: (1) Throughout the course of discovery in this manner, Voith has refused to products its documents in accordance with the provisions of Local Rule 26.2 and without its unilateral restrictions; (2) Voith produced nearly 100,000 pages of documents (over 75% of Voith's total production) on the eve of or following the February 15, 2008 deadline for document production in this matter; (3) Over 100,000 pages of the 129,851 pages of documents Voith produced in this matter are in German, and Voith refuses to provide English language translations of such documents; (4) Voith delayed until March 11, 2008 to notify JohnsonFoils that six (6) of the inventors of the Patents-in-Suit are no longer employed by Voith, despite knowing JohnsonFoils' intention to depose these witnesses as early as August 10, 2007; and (5) Voith delayed until March 11, 2008 to notify JohnsonFoils that a translator will be required to be present during the depositions of its witnesses as English is not their first language. See Exhibit X. 24. On April 3, 2008, Voith stated that it would oppose JohnsonFoils'

request for an extension of the April 30, 2008 discovery deadline. See Exhibit Y.

- 11 -

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 15 of 19

V.

ARGUMENT A. JohnsonFoils Has Demonstrated "Good Cause" To Extend The April 30, 2008 Discovery Deadline

JohnsonFoils requests a ninety (90) day extension of the discovery period due to the dilatory tactics that Voith has employed to impede JohnsonFoils' discovery progress throughout the course of this matter. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) requires that a court issue a scheduling order setting a timeline for litigation. Rule 16(b)(4)

permits modification of a scheduling order "only for good cause and with the judge's consent." The Advisory Committee Notes on the 1983 amendments to the Rules clarify this standard, stating "the court may modify the schedule on a showing of good cause if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the extension. Since the scheduling order is entered early in the litigation, this standard seems more appropriate than a 'manifest injustice' or 'substantial hardship' test." See also O'Connell v. Hyatt Hotels, 357 F.2d 152 (1st Cir. 2004). The good cause standard focuses on diligence of the moving party rather than prejudice to the non-moving party. Scheidecker v. Arvig Enters, 139 F.R.D. 630, 631-632 (D. Minn. 2000). Even exercising the utmost diligence, it would be impossible for JohnsonFoils to complete discovery prior to the Scheduling Order's April 30, 2008 deadline due to the impediments that Voith has placed on JohnsonFoils throughout the discovery period. Since the initiation of discovery, Voith has attempted to place unreasonable, unilateral restrictions on JohnsonFoils ability to review and assess Voith's document production. See Exhibits E, I, K, M, O, and Q. Voith continued to assert - 12 -

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 16 of 19

such restrictions despite JohnsonFoils' repeated notice that Voith is imposing requirements that go beyond the scope of Local Rule 26.2. Voith's unwarranted, unilateral demands have impeded JohnsonFoils efforts to proceed with discovery. Voith also produced over 59,000 pages of documents on the February 15, 2008 deadline for document production (see Exhibit M), and over 40,000 pages of documents one month after this deadline (see Exhibits O and Q). Voith did not request leave of court or provide any advance notification to JohnsonFoils that it would be producing the majority of its documents in this action (over 75% of its total production) after the February 15, 2008 court ordered deadline. Over 100,000 pages (or 75%) of Voith's total document production are in a foreign language and Voith refuses to provide translations. See Exhibits W, X and Y. Plaintiffs have been required to provide translations of documents produced in a foreign language "as a reasonable cost of transacting business in this country." Stapleton v. Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd., 69 F.R.D. 489, 490 (D. Ga. 1975). An extension of time is warranted in order for JohnsonFoils to translate and review this large quantity of foreign language documents, most of which were produced following the February 15, 2008 document production deadline.1 Finally, despite having knowledge as far back as August 10, 2007 that JohnsonFoils intended to depose the seven (7) inventors of the Patents-in-Suit (see

JohnsonFoils recently obtained an estimate from a third party that it will take 4-6 months to perform a full translation of Voith's foreign language documents and the cost will be over $3,000,000. JohnsonFoils will likely seek to have Voith share the cost of such translations.
1

- 13 -

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 17 of 19

Exhibit A), Voith waited until March 11, 2008 to notify JohnsonFoils that six (6) of these inventors are no longer employed by Voith. When JohnsonFoils requested the last known addresses of the remaining deponents, Voith refused, contending that German law prohibited disclosure of this information. See attached Exhibit U. Because six (6) of the deponents are no longer employees of Voith, JohnsonFoils may be required to depose these individuals in a foreign country; further necessitating an extension of the discovery period. Based on Voith's dilatory tactics, JohnsonFoils will not be able to review and assess Voith's production of documents prior to the April 30, 2008 close of discovery. Consequently, JohnsonFoils will be prejudiced if required to depose Voith's witnesses without having a full assessment of the large quantity of foreign language documents Voith produced in this matter. Voith is clearly attempting to gain an unfair advantage in this matter by impeding JohnsonFoils ability to obtain discoverable information in a timely manner. JohnsonFoils substantial hardship goes far beyond the "good cause" required by Rule 16. If the deadline for completion of discovery is not extended, Voith will be rewarded for the use of dilatory tactics.2 Based on the foregoing, JohnsonFoils respectfully submits that "good cause" warrants a ninety (90) day extension of the discovery period in this matter.

JohnsonFoils is not seeking an extension of the November 5, 2008 trial date. A ninety (90) day extension of the discovery deadline is not expected to interfere with remaining pre-trial deadlines, including the August 20, 2008 dispositive motion deadline.
2

- 14 -

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 18 of 19

B.

JohnsonFoils Should be Permitted Additional Time to Conduct its Depositions

Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(d)(1) requires that "[u]nless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a deposition is limited to 1 day of 7 hours. The court must allow additional time consistent with Rule 26(b)(2) if needed to fairly examine the deponent or if the deponent, another person, or any other circumstance impedes or delays the examination." Voith is requiring that JohnsonFoils provide a translator for its depositions. See Exhibits S and V. Voith admits that the deponents speak English, and are willing to be deposed in English, yet still insists that JohnsonFoils provide translators. See id. Because the use of translators essentially duplicates the

question and answer process in a deposition, JohnsonFoils will require additional time to fairly examine Voith's witnesses. JohnsonFoils respectfully requests that this Court grant it two (2) days (i.e., fourteen (14) hours) to depose Voith's witnesses.

- 15 -

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 19 of 19

VI.

CONCLUSION Throughout the discovery period of this litigation, Voith has used dilatory

tactics to inhibit JohnsonFoils' ability to obtain discoverable information. JohnsonFoils respectfully request for a ninety (90) extension of the discovery period as good cause has been demonstrated warranting this requested relief. JohnsonFoils also respectfully requests additional time to take the depositions of Voith's witnesses as Voith has demanded the presence of a translator. Respectfully submitted, Dated: _____________________ _________________________________ George H. Seitz, III (DE #667) [email protected] Patricia Pyles McGonigle (DE #3126) [email protected] Kevin A. Guerke (DE#4096) [email protected] Seitz, Van Ogtrop & Green, P.A. 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 P.O. Box 68 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 888-0600 - and Anthony S. Volpe John J. O'Malley Ryan W. O'Donnell Volpe and Koenig, P.C. United Plaza, Suite 1600 30 South 17th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 568-6400

Attorneys for Defendant JohnsonFoils, Inc.

- 16 -

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 1 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 2 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 3 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 4 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 5 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 6 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 7 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 8 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 9 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 10 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 11 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 12 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 13 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 14 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 15 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 16 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 17 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 18 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 19 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 20 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 21 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 22 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 23 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 24 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 25 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 26 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 27 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 28 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 29 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 30 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 31 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 32 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 33 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 34 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 35 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 36 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 37 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 38 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 39 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 40 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 41 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 42 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 43 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 44 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 45 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 46 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 47 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 48 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 49 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 50 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 51 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 52 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 53 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 54 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 55 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-2

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 56 of 56

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 1 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 2 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 3 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 4 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 5 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 6 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 7 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 8 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 9 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 10 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 11 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 12 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 13 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 14 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 15 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 16 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 17 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 18 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 19 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 20 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 21 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 22 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 23 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 24 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 25 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 26 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 27 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 28 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 29 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 30 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 31 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 32 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 33 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 34 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 35 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 36 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 37 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 38 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-3

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 39 of 39

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 1 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 2 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 3 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 4 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 5 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 6 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 7 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 8 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 9 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 10 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 11 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 12 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 13 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 14 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 15 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 16 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 17 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 18 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 19 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 20 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 21 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 22 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 23 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 24 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 25 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 26 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 27 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 28 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 29 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 30 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-4

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 31 of 31

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 118-5

Filed 04/08/2008

Page 1 of 1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Patricia P. McGonigle, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 8th day of April 2008, I electronically filed the foregoing pleading with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of such filing to counsel of record. Further, I caused a copy of the foregoing pleading to be served upon the following counsel of record in the manner so noted: Via Hand Delivery Adam W. Poff, Esquire Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, LLP 1000 West Street, 17th Floor P. O. Box 391 Wilmington, DE 19899 Via Electronic Mail Neil F. Greenblum, Esquire Neal Goldberg, Esquire Michael J. Fink, Esquire Greenblum & Bernstein, PLC 1950 Roland Clarke Place Reston, Virginia 20191

/s/ Patricia P. McGonigle _________________________________ Patricia P. McGonigle (DE3126) [email protected]

64353 v1