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

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111

Filed 03/24/2008

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

ASTENJOHNSON, INC.'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO PROHIBIT THE DISCLOSURE AND DISCOVERY REQUESTED IN VOITH PAPER GMBH & CO. KG'S MARCH 14, 2008 SUBPOENAS 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 Third Party AstenJohnson, Inc.

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111

Filed 03/24/2008

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 111

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 3 of 17

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Pages

Allen v. Howmedica Leibinger, Inc., 190 F.R.D. 518 (W.D.Tenn. 1999) ................... 10 Cash Today of Tex. v. Greenberg, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20694 (D. Del. 2002) .................................................................................................... 10 Exxon Shipping Co. v. United States Dept. of Interior, 34 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 1994) ................................................................................................... 10 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) ....................... 10 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, 3, 6, 7 FED R. CIV. P. 45 .................................................................................................. 3, 6, 10

ii

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 4 of 17

I.

INTRODUCTION AstenJohnson, Inc. ("AstenJohnson") moves pursuant to FED R. CIV. P. 26(c)

for protection from the 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 its Complaint (D.I. No. 1) against JohnsonFoils 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 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 111

Filed 03/24/2008

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. Voith's current request for discovery of JohnsonFoils' customers and 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 111

Filed 03/24/2008

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 AstenJohnson wrote to Voith's counsel requesting that Voith withdraw its Subpoenas concerning AstenJohnson, as the subpoenas are clearly calculated solely for harassment of AstenJohnson. Exhibit L. On March 20, 2008, Voith's counsel responded that it will not withdraw the subpoenas. See Exhibit M. The first Bowater Subpoena, second Bowater Subpoena, and IP Subpoena are collectively referred to herein as the "Customer Subpoenas." -3See

2

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 7 of 17

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 exceeds the scope of discovery pursuant to FED R. CIV. P. 45, is overly broad and creates an undue burden and harassment on a non-party. Any and all discovery purportedly sought through the subpoena that is potentially relevant to a claim or defense in this matter is directly available from the named defendant, JohnsonFoils. The scope of the AstenJohnson subpoena extends well beyond any issue related to the patents-in-suit and is a classic fishing expedition through the business information of a third party, which is also a competitor of Voith. A protective order pursuant to FED R. CIV. P. 26(c) is warranted as the discovery requested in Topic No. 7 and Request No. 5 of the two Bowater Subpoenas and the IP Subpoena, is overly broad and requests information regarding AstenJohnson's business relationships which are wholly irrelevant to the subject matter of the present litigation. Furthermore, the subpoenas require information that is unrelated to the patents-in-suit or any mill that is alleged to have a rebuild allegedly covered by the patents-in-suit. 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.

-4-

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 8 of 17

AstenJohnson is a supplier of clothing for paper machines. JohnsonFoils specializes 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

-5-

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 9 of 17

of the patents-in-suit.

Instead, the broad scope of the Customer Subpoenas

encompasses all information concerning AstenJohnson's business relationships with these customers, including all administrative or 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:

JohnsonFoils is contemporaneously filing a Motion for Protective Order to limit the broad scope of discovery regarding JohnsonFoils as requested in the Customer Subpoenas.
3

-6-

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111

Filed 03/24/2008

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;

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) allows either a party or the person from whom discovery is sought to, for good cause shown, 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 deposition testimony and discovery sought in the AstenJohnson Subpoena, and prohibit any discovery pertaining to AstenJohnson in the Bowater Subpoenas and the IP Subpoena.

-7-

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 11 of 17

B.

THE ASTENJOHNSON SUBPOENA SHOULD BE PROHIBITED IN ITS ENTIRETY AS IT IS NON-SPECIFIC, UNDULY BURDENSOME, AND HARASSING

The "Topics for Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition" ("Topics") and "Document Requests" ("Requests") identified in Voith's 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 only designed to harass AstenJohnson, a non-party and separate competitor of Voith. The broad scope of Voith's eighteen (18) "Topics for Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition" and fifteen (15) "Documents Requests" in the AstenJohnson Subpoena (Exhibit H) may be summarized as: Category 1: AstenJohnson's organization, products, and services (Topic 1 and Request 1); Category 2: The market relating to paper making machines (Topic 2); Category 3: 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 4: 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 5: The patents-in-suit, information about Voith, and information concerning the present litigation (Topics 8, 10, 13, 14 and Requests 8, 9, 12); Category 6: AstenJohnson's patents or patent licenses "relating to the field of paper machines" (Topic 9 and Request 7); Category 7: AstenJohnson's relationship with JohnsonFoils (Topics 11 and 12 and Request 10); Category 8: Coordination of pricing, marketing efforts and sales between AstenJohnson and JohnsonFoils (Topics 15 and 16 and Requests 11 and 13); and

-8-

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 12 of 17

AstenJohnson or JohnsonFoils projection and forecasts Category 9: concerning "rebuilds of paper machines" (Topic 17 and Request 14). The fact that the AstenJohnson Subpoena Topics and Requests are either irrelevant or too broad to decipher is demonstrated by Category 1 (AstenJohnson's products and services), Category 6 (patents and licenses), and Category 2 In addition,

(information relating to the market for paper making machines).

because the scope of the AstenJohnson Subpoena requests information concerning all aspects of AstenJohnson's business from the beginning of time, it would be impossible for AstenJohnson to produce meaningful testimony or documents on these areas for the requested time period. Voith did not even attempt to narrow the scope of its subpoena to the allegedly infringing portions of the accused paper machines or any paper machine(s) allegedly covered by the patents-in-suit by providing a definition for the phrase "rebuild of a paper machine." 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. AstenJohnson is not a party to this action and the products or services it provides to the paper making industry are unrelated to the subject matter of the patents-in-suit or any claim or defense asserted in the action. Voith brought this action against JohnsonFoils alleging infringement of particular patented subject matter. It cannot be permitted to use this baseless suit as a vehicle to conduct a fishing expedition or harass JohnsonFoils' sister corporations or its business relationships with the targeted customers. Furthermore, Voith should be

prohibited from using this suit to obtain information from its competitor,

-9-

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 13 of 17

AstenJohnson, particularly where such information is irrelevant to the present litigation. C. THE ASTENJOHNSON DISCOVERY MUST BE PROHIBITED BECAUSE ANY RELEVANT INFORMATION TO A CLAIM OR DEFENSE CAN BE OBTAINED FROM JOHNSONFOILS

Any potentially "relevant" discovery sought through the AstonJohnson Subpoena should be obtained from JohnsonFoils and Voith has not identified any need for burdening a non-party, 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)).

- 10 -

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 14 of 17

All relevant discovery in this matter can and should be obtained from JohnsonFoils, and the discovery directed to AstenJohnson is, at best, duplicative of the seventy-four (74) document requests (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. Voith's motive is reflected by the fact that Voith will not have taken the depositions of JohnsonFoils employees or the JohnsonFoils 30(b)(6) deposition and four (4) JohnsonFoils employee deposition when it takes its currently scheduled April 4, 2008 AstenJohnson deposition. Thus, it is clear that Voith is not seeking to fill discovery gaps with information that is not otherwise available from JohnsonFoils! AstenJohnson respectfully requests that this Court issue a protective order to prohibit the discovery requested in the AstenJohnson Subpoena as its broad scope creates an undue burden and harassment on non-party, AstenJohnson, when all requested discovery that is relevant to a claim or defense in this matter should be obtained from the named defendant, JohnsonFoils. D. THE DISCOVERY REGARDING ASTENJOHNSON CUSTOMER SUBPOENAS MUST BE DENIED IN THE

The AstenJohnson discovery requested in the two Bowater Subpoenas and the IP Subpoena must be denied as it overly broad and irrelevant to any claim or defense in this action. Topic No. 7 of the "Topics for Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition" in the

- 11 -

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 15 of 17

Bowater and IP 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. Request No. 5 of the "Document Requests" in the Bowater and IP 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. The scope of these three (3) Customer Subpoenas is not limited to the sections of the accused paper machines allegedly covered by the subject matter of the patents-in-suit. In addition, "goods and/or services purchased or obtained from AstenJohnson" are not at issue in this matter. Finally, Voith does not place any period of time on its requested discovery of JohnsonFoils' customers. As served, the Subpoenas are not limited to a mill, a machine, a rebuild supplier or any specific thing. These Subpoenas are a broad fishing expedition into all of the mills

activities, whether or not they concern anything covered by the patents-in-suit. The scope of Topic No. 7 and Request No. 5 in the Customer Subpoenas are broad enough to include all information concerning all business relationships that AstenJohnson had, at any time, with any JohnsonFoils customer, and they are not limited to any particular project concerning subject matter allegedly covered by the patents-in-suit. Such broad, open-ended discovery of customers not only creates an undue burden for these third parties, but also reward Voith for conducting a

- 12 -

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 16 of 17

harassing fishing expedition into AstenJohnson's business relationships which are clearly irrelevant to the present lawsuit. AstenJohnson respectfully requests that this Court issue a protective order to prohibit the discovery requested in Topic No. 7 and Request No. 5 of the Customer Subpoenas. VI. CONCLUSION AstenJohnson respectfully requests the issuance of a protective order prohibiting all discovery of AstenJohnson requested in the AstenJohnson Subpoena and a protective order prohibiting the discovery requested in Topic No. 7 and Request No. 5 of the three (3) Customer Subpoenas. Respectfully submitted, Seitz, Van Ogtrop & Green, P.A. Dated: March 24, 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

- 13 -

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 17 of 17

- 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 Third Party AstenJohnson, Inc.

- 14 -

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 1 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 2 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 3 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 4 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 5 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 6 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 7 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 8 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 9 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 10 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 11 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 12 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 13 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 14 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 15 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 16 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 17 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 18 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 19 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 20 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 21 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 22 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 23 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 24 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 25 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 26 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 27 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 28 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 29 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 30 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 31 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 32 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 33 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 34 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 35 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 36 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 37 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 38 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 39 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 40 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 41 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 42 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 43 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 44 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 45 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 46 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 47 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 48 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 49 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 50 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 51 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 52 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 53 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 54 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-2

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 55 of 55

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 1 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 2 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 3 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 4 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 5 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 6 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 7 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 8 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 9 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 10 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 11 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 12 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 13 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 14 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 15 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 16 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 17 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 18 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 19 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 20 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 21 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 22 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 23 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 24 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 25 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 26 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 27 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 28 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 29 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 30 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 31 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 32 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 33 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 34 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 35 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 36 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 37 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 38 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 39 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 40 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 41 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 42 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 43 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 44 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 45 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 46 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 47 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 48 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 49 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 50 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 51 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 52 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 53 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 54 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 55 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 56 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 57 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 58 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-3

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 59 of 59

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-4

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 1 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-4

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 2 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-4

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 3 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-4

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 4 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-4

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 5 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-4

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 6 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-4

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 7 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-4

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 8 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-4

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 9 of 9

Case 1:07-cv-00226-JJF

Document 111-5

Filed 03/24/2008

Page 1 of 1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Patricia P. McGonigle, Esquire, hereby certify that on this 24th 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]

64179 v1