Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 1 of 17
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 BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR AN ORDER OF PROTECTION FROM THE MARCH 14, 2008 SUBPOENAS SERVED BY VOITH PAPER GMBH & CO. KG George H. Seitz, III (DE #667) Patricia Pyles McGonigle (DE #3126) Kevin A. Guerke (DE#4096) Seitz, Van Ogtrop & Green, P.A. 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 P.O. Box 68 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 888-0600 -andAnthony 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.
Dated: March 25, 2008
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 2 of 17
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. II. III. IV. V. VI. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ -1NATURE AND STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS........................................ -1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ......................................................................... -4STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................... -4ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... -6CONCLUSION.............................................................................................. -13-
i
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 3 of 17
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Pages
Allen v. Howmedica Leibinger, Inc., 190 F.R.D. 518 (W.D.Tenn. 1999) ................... 12 Cash Today of Tex. v. Greenberg, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20694 (D. Del. 2002) .................................................................................................... 12 Exxon Shipping Co. v. United States Dept. of Interior, 34 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................................... 12 La Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Co., 60 F.R.D. 164 (D. Del. 1973)............................. 7 Mack v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., 871 F.2d 179 (1st Cir. 1989)......... 6, 9 Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Armstrong World Indus., 206 F.R.D. 525 (D. Del. 2002)....................................................................................................... 7 MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 218 F.R.D. 423 (D. Del. 2003) ....................... 12 Power Integrations Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60089 (D. Del. 2006) ..................................................... 7 Zuk v. E. Pa. Psychiatric Inst., 103 F.3d 294, 299 (3d Cir. 1996)................................ 6
Rules Cited FED R. CIV. P. 26(b) .................................................................................................... 6, 8 FED R. CIV. P. 26(c) ............................................................................................ 1, 4, 6, 7 FED R. CIV. P. 45 .................................................................................................. 4, 6, 12
ii
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 4 of 17
I.
INTRODUCTION JohnsonFoils, Inc. ("JohnsonFoils") moves pursuant to FED R. CIV. P. 26(c) for
protection from the four March 14, 2008 Subpoenas served on AstenJohnson, AbitibiBowater, Inc. ("AbitibiBowater"), and International Paper Company
("International Paper") by Voith Paper GMBH & Co. KG ("Voith"). II. NATURE AND STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS On April 20, 2007, Voith filed a Complaint (D.I. No. 1) alleging that JohnsonFoils infringes Voith's U.S. Patent Nos. 5,718,805, ("805 Patent") and 5,972,168 ("'168 Patent") (collectively, the "patents-in-suit"). On July 26, 2007, Voith served its First Set of Interrogatories and First Requests for Production on JohnsonFoils. See Exhibits A and B. On August 16, 2007, Voith served its Second Set of Interrogatories and Second Requests for Production of Documents on JohnsonFoils. See Exhibits C and D. On August 24, 2007, JohnsonFoils filed Requests for Reexamination of the patents-in-suit with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). On August 28, 2007, JohnsonFoils filed its Motion to Stay the Proceedings Pending Reexamination of the Patents-In-Suit or in the Alternative for Leave to File a Motion for Summary Judgment that U.S. Patent Nos. 5,718,805, and 5,972,168 are Invalid ("Motion to Stay") (D.I. Nos. 27 and 28).1
JohnsonFoils' Motion to Stay is currently pending before this Court. On or about February 13, 2008, both JohnsonFoils and Voith provided this Court with a supplemental submission in connection with JohnsonFoils' Motion to Stay at this
1
-1-
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 5 of 17
On January 15, 2008, Voith served its Third Set of Interrogatories and Third Requests for Production of Documents on JohnsonFoils. See Exhibits E and F. On March 14, 2008, Voith served the following: 1. "Notice of Taking Deposition Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) of
JohnsonFoils, Inc." See Exhibit G. The Notice contains forty-six (46) topics for deposition, and schedules the deposition for April 22, 2008. 2. employees: (A) (B) (C) (D) 3. Vaughn Wildfong (scheduled for April 24, 2008); Douglas McPherson (scheduled for April 21, 2008); Jay Shands (scheduled for April 23, 2008); and James Ronning (scheduled for April 25, 2008). A Rule 30(b)(6) Subpoena on AstenJohnson, Inc. ("AstenJohnson Individual Deposition Notices for the following JohnsonFoils
Subpoena"), which was issued by the District of South Carolina. See Exhibit H. This Subpoena scheduled a deposition of AstenJohnson for April 4, 2008 on eighteen (18) topics and requests fifteen (15) broad categories of documents. 4. A first Rule 30(b)(6) Subpoena on AbitibiBowater, Inc. ("first Bowater
Subpoena"), which was issued by the Eastern District of Tennessee. See Exhibit I. This Subpoena scheduled a deposition of AbitibiBowater for April 28, 2008 on
Court's request (D.I. Nos. 88 and 89). The timing of Voith's current request for discovery of JohnsonFoils' customers and its sister corporation, AstenJohnson, is particularly specious in view of the fact that the Court has not decided JohnsonFoils' Motion to Stay. -2-
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 6 of 17
thirteen (13) topics, requests eleven (11) broad categories of documents, and a site inspection. 5. A second Rule 30(b)(6) Subpoena on AbitibiBowater, Inc. ("second
Bowater Subpoena"), which was issued by the District of Arizona. See Exhibit J. This Subpoena scheduled a deposition of AbitibiBowater for April 8, 2008 on thirteen (13) topics, requests eleven (11) broad categories of documents, and a site inspection. The deposition topics and requests for production of documents in the second Bowater Subpoena are substantially identical to the first Bowater Subpoena. 6. A Rule 30(b)(6) Subpoena on International Paper Company ("IP
Subpoena"), which was issued by the Northern District of Alabama. See Exhibit K. This Subpoena scheduled a deposition of International Paper Company for April 30, 2008 on thirteen (13) topics, requests eleven (11) broad categories of documents, and a site inspection. The deposition topics and requests for production of documents in the IP Subpoena are substantially identical to the first and second Bowater Subpoenas.2 On March 19, 2008, counsel for JohnsonFoils and AstenJohnson wrote to Voith's counsel requesting that Voith withdraw its Subpoenas concerning AstenJohnson, as the Subpoenas are clearly calculated to harass JohnsonFoils, its sister corporation, AstenJohnson, and to interfere with JohnsonFoils' business relationships. See Exhibit L.
2
The first Bowater Subpoena, second Bowater Subpoena, and IP Subpoena are collectively referred to herein as the "Customer Subpoenas." -3-
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 7 of 17
On March 20, 2008, Voith's counsel responded that it will not withdraw the Subpoenas. See Exhibit M. On March 24, 2008, third-party, AstenJohnson, filed a Motion for Protective Order to Prohibit the Disclosure and Discovery of AstenJohnson Requested in the AstenJohnson Subpoena and Customer Subpoenas (D.I. Nos. 110 and 111). III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT A protective order pursuant to FED R. CIV. P. 26(c) is warranted as the discovery requested in the AstenJohnson Subpoena and Customer Subpoenas as it relates to JohnsonFoils exceeds the scope of discovery pursuant to FED R. CIV. P. 26 and 45, is overly broad, creates an undue burden, and is intended to harass third parties to this action. Any and all discovery, purportedly sought through these Subpoenas, that is potentially relevant to a claim or defense in this matter is directly available from the named defendant, JohnsonFoils. The scope of these
Subpoenas extends well beyond any issue related to the patents-in-suit and is a classic fishing expedition through the business information of third parties, including AstenJohnson which is a direct competitor of Voith. IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. AstenJohnson and JohnsonFoils are individually incorporated entities
that are wholly owned subsidiaries of AstenJohnson Holdings Ltd. 2. Although AstenJohnson and JohnsonFoils are both in the paper
industry, each entity is specialized in the products and services it provides. AstenJohnson is a supplier of clothing for paper machines. JohnsonFoils specializes
-4-
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 8 of 17
in equipment for the management of water removal and paper sheet formation on paper machines. Both AstenJohnson and JohnsonFoils are competitors of Voith. 3. The paper machine clothing that AstenJohnson supplies is unrelated
to the subject matter of the patents-in-suit. 4. The AstenJohnson Subpoena includes eighteen (18) "Topics for Rule
30(b)(6) Deposition" and fifteen (15) Document Requests that are not limited to the issues concerning the patents-in-suit, but are broadly directed to all aspects of AstenJohnson's business and any relationship with JohnsonFoils. See Exhibit H. 5. AbitibiBowater and International Paper are customers of both
JohnsonFoils and AstenJohnson. 6. Topic No. 7 of the "Topics for Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition" of the Customer
Subpoenas requests testimony on "[a]ll goods and/or services purchased or obtained from AstenJohnson, both before, during and after the rebuild, and the amounts paid for such goods and services." (Emphasis added). See Exhibits I, J, and K. 7. Request No. 5 of the "Document Requests" in the Customer Subpoenas
states, "[a]ll documents referring or relating to goods and/or services purchased or obtained from JohnsonFoils and/or AstenJohnson, before, during and after the rebuild, and the amounts paid for such goods and services." (Emphasis added). See Exhibits I, J, and K. 8. The scope of information in the Customer Subpoenas is not limited to
the sections of the accused paper machines allegedly covered by the subject matter of the patents-in-suit and does not relate to any claim or defense. Instead, the
-5-
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 9 of 17
unbounded JohnsonFoils'
Customer business
Subpoenas
encompass with
all
information customers,
concerning all
relationships
these
including
administrative, financial, marketing, sales, and technical information which is wholly unrelated to the subject matter of this suit.3 V. ARGUMENT A. LEGAL AUTHORITY
Pursuant to FED R. CIV. P. 26(b)(1), "[p]arties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, that is relevant to the claim or defense of any party...." A party is not permitted "to undertake wholly exploratory operations in the vague hope that something helpful will turn up." Mack v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc., 871 F.2d 179, 187(1st Cir. 1989); Zuk v. E. Pa. Psychiatric Inst., 103 F.3d 294, 299 (3d Cir. 1996) (Rule 26 reflects the principle that "discovery is not intended as a fishing expedition permitting the speculative pleading of a case first and then pursuing discovery to support it."). FED R. CIV. P. 45(c)(1) requires that "[a] party or an attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena." FED R. CIV. P. 26(c) allows a party from whom discovery is sought to move for a protective order "to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense," and the party may request relief that:
AstenJohnson recently filed a Motion for Protective Order to limit the broad scope of discovery requested in the Customer Subpoenas and AstenJohnson Subpoena (D.I. Nos. 110 and 111).
3
-6-
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 10 of 17
(1) (2) (3) (4)
that the disclosure or discovery not be had; that the disclosure or discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place; that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery; that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the disclosure or discovery be limited to certain matters;
Pursuant to Rule 26(c) a party may seek a protective order by filing a motion in the court where the action is pending or, on matters relating to a deposition, the court in the district where the deposition is to be taken. See e.g., Power
Integrations Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int'l, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60089 (D. Del. 2006) (granting non-party's request for an order to quash subpoena and a protective order precluding a deposition) (copy attached as Exhibit N); Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Armstrong World Indus., 206 F.R.D. 525, 529 (D. Del. 2002); See also La Chemise Lacoste v. Alligator Co., 60 F.R.D. 164 (D. Del. 1973) (ordering a subpoena for depositions and production of documents to be limited to certain matters upon defendant's motion for a protective order). For the reasons discussed below, this Court should prohibit the discovery sought in the AstenJohnson Subpoena and Customer Subpoenas as the scope of these Subpoenas goes well beyond any "claim or defense" by the parties in this action. Voith is misusing the discovery process in this action to obtain an overly broad array of competitive information from a plurality of sources that is irrelevant to the present litigation.
-7-
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 11 of 17
B.
THE OVERLY BROAD SCOPE OF DISCOVERY REGARDING JOHNSONFOILS IN THE ASTENJOHNSON SUBPOENA MUST BE PROHIBITED
The "Topics for Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition" ("Topics") and "Document Requests" ("Requests") identified in the AstenJohnson Subpoena are not "relevant to any party's claim or defense" as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1), overly broad, and framed solely to harass JohnsonFoils and its sister corporation, AstenJohnson, a non-party competitor of Voith. At least Topics 3-7, 11, 12, and 15-18 and Requests 2-6, 10, 11, and 13-15 of the AstenJohnson Subpoena (Exhibit "H") are broadly crafted to request information that is wholly irrelevant to this litigation. These Topics and Requests can be summarized as follows: Category 1: AstenJohnson's pricing and sales relating to any third party whose "paper machine(s) have been rebuilt by JohnsonFoils" (Topics 3 and 18 and Request 15); Category 2: AstenJohnson's goods, information, services provided to customers or JohnsonFoils or any revenue or amounts paid to JohnsonFoils relating to "any rebuild of a paper machine" (Topics 4-7 and Requests 2-6); Category 3: AstenJohnson's relationship with JohnsonFoils (Topics 11 and 12 and Request 10); Category 4: Coordination of pricing, marketing efforts and sales between AstenJohnson and JohnsonFoils (Topics 15 and 16 and Requests 11 and 13); and Category 5: AstenJohnson or JohnsonFoils projection and forecasts concerning "rebuilds of paper machines" (Topic 17 and Request 14). The discovery requested in Categories 1-5 is either irrelevant to this action or too broadly stated to be meaningfully deciphered. For example, the scope of
Category 2 requests all information concerning any customer or project in which
-8-
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 12 of 17
JohnsonFoils "rebuilt" any paper machine from the beginning of time. Category 5 requests all projections and forecasts relating to any "rebuild of paper machines" from the beginning of time. However, the subject matter of the present litigation is not so broad. The patents-in-suit are limited to a particular section of a paper machine; not any "rebuild" of a paper machine. Voith has not framed the discovery by providing a definition for the phrase "rebuild of a paper machine," limiting it in time, or specifically directing it to any accused paper machine. The scope of Categories 1 and 4 are so broad that they could encompass all information pertaining to any business relationship between JohnsonFoils and its customers (Category 1) or between JohnsonFoils and AstenJohnson (Category 4), regardless of whether such information related to a paper machine, let alone the particular section of a paper machine subject to the claims in Voith's patents-insuit. Discovery regarding the relationship between AstenJohnson and
JohnsonFoils is irrelevant to any claim or defense in this lawsuit (Category 3). As Voith is well aware, AstenJohnson and JohnsonFoils are individually incorporated entities that are wholly owned subsidiaries of AstenJohnson Holdings Ltd. Information relating to AstenJohnson's "relationship with JohnsonFoils" or "any indemnification and/or warranty between AstenJohnson and JohnsonFoils" is wholly irrelevant to the subject matter of the patents-in-suit. Voith cannot be permitted "to undertake wholly exploratory operations in the vague hope that something helpful will turn up." Mack, 871 F.2d at 187. Voith
-9-
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 13 of 17
should not be permitted to use the guise of obtaining broad discovery regarding all business relationships between AstenJohnson and JohnsonFoils as a vehicle for obtaining competitive information that is irrelevant to this lawsuit and which it would not otherwise obtain lawfully. JohnsonFoils respectfully requests that this Court issue a protective order to prohibit the broad discovery requested in the AstenJohnson Subpoena as it relates to JohnsonFoils (Topics 3-7, 11, 12, and 15-18 and Requests 2-6, 10, 11, and 13-15) as the scope of this discovery is not relevant to any claim or defense in this matter. C. THE OVERLY BROAD SCOPE OF DISCOVERY CUSTOMER SUBPOENAS MUST BE PROHIBITED IN THE
The JohnsonFoils discovery requested in the Customer Subpoenas must be prohibited as it overly broad and irrelevant to any claim or defense in this action. Topics 1-5, 8, and 9 and Requests 1, 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the Customer Subpoenas broadly request all information relating to any customer or project in which JohnsonFoils "rebuilt" any paper machine." See Exhibits I, J, and K. As discussed in detail above, the patents-in-suit are directed to a particular section of a paper machine; they do not relate to all sections of a paper machine or any "rebuild" of any section of a paper machine. Thus, the broad scope of the Customer Subpoenas goes well beyond the metes and bound of any claim or defense in this action. In addition, Voith has accused JohnsonFoils of infringement with respect to services JohnsonFoils provided on particular paper machines. Thus, Voith's request for JohnsonFoils customers to provide information relating to "JohnsonFoils rebuild
- 10 -
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 14 of 17
of any paper machine" is clearly an attempt to abuse the discovery process and harass JohnsonFoils and its customer relationships. Furthermore, Topic 6 of the Customer Subpoena requests, "[i]n addition to the rebuild performed by JohnsonFoils, all other goods and/or services purchased or obtained from JohnsonFoils, both before, during, and after the rebuild, and the amounts paid for such goods and/or services." Notwithstanding that Voith fails to define the term "rebuild," Topic 6 expressly requests information relating to all other JohnsonFoils goods and services at any time, regardless of whether they are related to any "rebuild." Similarly, Request No. 2 states, "[a]ll documents referring or relating to the decision to rebuild any paper machines," and Request No. 11 states, "all documents that refer or relate to any communications with JohnsonFoils or any entity acting on behalf of JohnsonFoils." Again, Voith provides no definition for the term
"rebuild," and the scope of these requests for information clearly go well beyond the subject matter of the patents-in-suit or scope of this litigation. The Customer Subpoenas are a thinly veiled attempt by Voith to conduct a fishing expedition among JohnsonFoils customers with the added purpose to harass JohnsonFoils and its business relationships with important customers.
JohnsonFoils respectfully requests that this Court issue a protective order prohibiting the JohnsonFoils discovery requested in the Customer Subpoenas.
- 11 -
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 15 of 17
D.
ALL RELEVANT DISCOVERY RESPONSIVE TO THE FOUR VOITH SUBPOENAS CAN BE OBTAINED FROM JOHNSONFOILS
Any potentially "relevant" discovery sought through the objectionable Voith Subpoenas is obtainable from JohnsonFoils. Voith has not identified any need for burdening JohnsonFoils' Customers or AstenJohnson with such broad discovery. FED R. CIV. P. 45(c)(1) requires that "[a] party or an attorney responsible for the issuance and service of a subpoena shall take reasonable steps to avoid imposing undue burden or expense on a person subject to that subpoena." MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 218 F.R.D. 423, 424 (D. Del. 2003) ("It is incumbent upon counsel in the first instance to order discovery demands, particularly against non-parties, in such a way that the burdens of giving evidence are reasonable, under all of the circumstances presented."); Cash Today of Tex. v. Greenberg, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20694, *13 (D. Del. 2002) (attached as Exhibit O) (citing Allen v. Howmedica Leibinger, Inc., 190 F.R.D. 518, 525 (W.D.Tenn. 1999)) ("In determining if compliance with the subpoena would create an undue burden, the court should consider not only the potential burden to the producing party, but the necessity of the information for the party seeking production, and whether the information can be obtained from other, more convenient sources."). "In this undue burden inquiry, nonparties are afforded `special protection.'" Cash Today at *13 (citing Exxon Shipping Co. v. United States Dept. of Interior, 34 F.3d 774, 779 (9th Cir. 1994)). All relevant discovery in this matter can and should be obtained from JohnsonFoils, and the discovery directed to AstenJohnson and JohnsonFoils' customers is, at best, duplicative of the seventy-four (74) document requests
- 12 -
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 16 of 17
(Exhibits B, D, and F), twenty (20) interrogatories (Exhibits A, C, and E), notice of 30(b)(6) deposition (Exhibit G), and four (4) employee deposition notices that Voith has already served on JohnsonFoils in this matter. Voith has not identified any deficiency in JohnsonFoils' document production or any reason why the requested discovery cannot be obtained from JohnsonFoils. JohnsonFoils respectfully requests that this Court issue a protective order to prohibit the discovery requested in the AstenJohnson Subpoena and Customer Subpoenas as their breath creates an undue burden on and harassment of nonparties to this action. VI. CONCLUSION JohnsonFoils respectfully requests the issuance of a protective order prohibiting Voith from proceeding with the discovery concerning JohnsonFoils through the AstenJohnson Subpoena and Customer Subpoenas. Respectfully submitted, Seitz, Van Ogtrop & Green, P.A. Dated: March 25, 2008 /s/ Patricia P. McGonigle _________________________________ George H. Seitz, III (DE #667) [email protected] Patricia Pyles McGonigle (DE #3126) [email protected] Kevin A. Guerke (DE#4096) [email protected] 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 P.O. Box 68 Wilmington, DE 19899 (302) 888-0600 - and -
- 13 -
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 17 of 17
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.
- 14 -
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 1 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 2 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 3 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 4 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 5 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 6 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 7 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 8 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 9 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 10 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 11 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 12 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 13 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 14 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 15 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 16 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 17 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 18 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 19 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 20 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 21 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 22 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 23 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 24 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 25 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 26 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 27 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 28 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 29 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 30 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 31 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 32 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 33 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 34 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 35 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 36 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 37 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 38 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 39 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 40 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 41 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 42 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 43 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 44 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 45 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 46 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 47 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 48 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 49 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 50 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 51 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 52 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 53 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 54 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-2
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 55 of 55
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 1 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 2 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 3 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 4 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 5 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 6 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 7 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 8 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 9 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 10 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 11 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 12 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 13 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 14 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 15 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 16 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 17 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 18 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 19 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 20 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 21 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 22 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 23 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 24 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 25 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 26 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 27 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 28 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 29 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 30 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 31 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 32 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 33 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 34 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 35 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 36 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 37 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 38 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 39 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 40 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 41 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 42 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 43 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 44 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 45 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 46 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 47 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 48 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 49 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 50 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 51 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 52 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 53 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 54 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 55 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 56 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 57 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 58 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-3
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 59 of 59
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-4
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 1 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-4
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 2 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-4
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 3 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-4
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 4 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-4
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 5 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-4
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 6 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-4
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 7 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-4
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 8 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-4
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 9 of 9
Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF
Document 113-5
Filed 03/25/2008
Page 1 of 1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Patricia P. McGonigle, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 25th day of March 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 as noted Plaintiff's Counsel: 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 Federal Express Neil F. Greenblum, Esquire Neal Goldberg, Esquire Michael J. Fink, Esquire Greenblum & Bernstein, PLC 1950 Roland Clarke Place Reston, Virginia 20191
Third-Parties: Via Federal Express AbitibiBowater, Inc. c/o Corporation Service Company 2908 Poston Avenue Nashville, TN 37203 Via Federal Express AbitibiBowater, Inc. c/o C T Corporation System 2394 E. Camelback Road Phoenix, AZ 85016 Via Federal Express International Paper Company c/o The Corporation Company 2000 Interstate Park Drive Suite 204 Montgomery, AL 36109
/s/ Patricia P. McGonigle _________________________________ Patricia P. McGonigle (DE3126) [email protected]
64190 v1