Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-2
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 1 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-2
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 2 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-2
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 3 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-2
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 4 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-2
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 5 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-2
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 6 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-2
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 7 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-2
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 8 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-2
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 9 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-2
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 10 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-2
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 11 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-2
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 12 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-2
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 13 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-2
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 14 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-2
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 15 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-2
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 16 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-2
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 17 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-2
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 18 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-2
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 19 of 19
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 1 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 2 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 3 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 4 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 5 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 6 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 7 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 8 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 9 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 10 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 11 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 12 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 13 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 14 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 15 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 16 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 17 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 18 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 19 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 20 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 21 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 22 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 23 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 24 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 25 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 26 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 27 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 28 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 29 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 30 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 31 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 32 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 33 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 34 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 35 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 36 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 37 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 38 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 39 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 40 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 41 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 42 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 43 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-3
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 44 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 1 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 2 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 3 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 4 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 5 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 6 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 7 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 8 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 9 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 10 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 11 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 12 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 13 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 14 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 15 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 16 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 17 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 18 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 19 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 20 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 21 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 22 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 23 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 24 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 25 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 26 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 27 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 28 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 29 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 30 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 31 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 32 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 33 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 34 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 35 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 36 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 37 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 38 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 39 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 40 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 41 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 42 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 43 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-4
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 44 of 44
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-5
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 1 of 6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION
Revised 11/01/06
TO:
All Attorneys of Record Appearing in a Case Designated for Enrollment in the Electronic Case Files System (including Attorneys in pro se cases)
STANDING ORDER1 DESIGNATING CASE FOR ENROLLMENT IN THE ELECTRONIC CASE FILES "ECF" SYSTEM The court has determined that this case will be enrolled in the Electronic Case Files ("ECF") system as an ECF case. Therefore, it is ordered that all counsel of record must register as an ECF user within ten days of the date of notice of this order, if they have not already done so. Only licensed attorneys may submit documents for electronic filing; therefore, no pro se party (including a prisoner) will be permitted to register as an ECF user or submit documents electronically. To register, counsel must: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Review Miscellaneous Order Number 61; Review the ECF Administrative Procedures Manual; Complete the online attorney tutorial for ECF training; Review the ECF User Guide; Complete the ECF Attorney/User Registration Form and forward it to the Clerk's Office; and
Upon opening a new case, the clerk must enter this Standing Order. If the plaintiff or petitioner in a civil action is proceeding pro se, the clerk may not distribute this order unless there is an order for process to issue. If process is ordered to issue, the clerk is directed at that time to send a copy of this order to the defendant or respondent with the service of the summons or show cause order.
Standing Order Designating Case for Enrollment in ECF - Page 1
1
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-5
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 2 of 6
6.
Ensure that any attorney granted pro hac vice admission as co-counsel in this case also registers as an ECF user.
Please note: The designation of this case as an ECF case and the accompanying requirements are mandatory. Any request seeking leave to be excluded from this designation must be in the form of a written motion and is subject to a hearing.2
Duty of Initiating Party to Serve ECF Designation Order upon Opposing Party It is further ordered that in a civil ECF case, the party initiating the action in this court must serve a copy of this order on the opposing party(ies) with service of process or within five days of receipt of this order, whichever is later. If an additional party is joined in a civil ECF case at a later date, the party joining the additional party is ordered to serve a copy of this order on the additional party within five days of when the additional party is joined. In a criminal ECF case, it is ordered that the government serve a copy of this order on defendant's counsel when defendant's counsel makes an appearance in the case on behalf of the defendant.
If the court initially grants an attorney permission to submit documents for filing on paper, the court may withdraw that permission at any time during the pendency of a case and require the attorney to re-file documents electronically using the ECF system. An attorney who is granted permission to submit documents for filing on paper will be required to include with each paper document a disk or CD-ROM containing an electronic copy of the paper filed with the court in portable document format ("PDF").
2
Standing Order Designating Case for Enrollment in ECF - Page 2
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-5
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 3 of 6
Electronic Case Files Requirements After an attorney is registered as an ECF user, the attorney must submit all documents for filing in this case using the ECF system. In doing so, counsel must observe the following directives: 1. Governing Documents: The case will be governed, unless otherwise ordered, by Miscellaneous Order Number 61, the ECF Administrative Procedures Manual, and the ECF User Guide. 2. Service of Documents upon Non-ECF Users: Service of documents upon non-ECF users (including pro se litigants) must be effected on paper in a manner authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. 3. Courtesy Copies ("paper copies" of filings in ECF cases): Each judge listed on the reference chart included as Attachment 1 to this Standing Order has specific requirements for courtesy copies. Each courtesy copy must be marked "Judge's Copy," must have a copy of the Notice of Electronic Filing3 for that document affixed as the first page, must be delivered to the court within three business days of the date of filing of the original document, and must be in the form required by LR 10.1 and LCrR 49.3. The court, in its discretion, may not begin its consideration of the document until it has received the required courtesy copy.
A link to the Notice of Electronic Filing and the electronically filed document will be automatically e-mailed to the filer upon the completion of the electronic filing procedure.
Standing Order Designating Case for Enrollment in ECF - Page 3
3
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-5
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 4 of 6
Furthermore, failure to follow the courtesy copy requirements of the presiding judge may result in the document being unfiled. If the courtesy copy is mailed directly to the chambers of the presiding judge, delivery is complete upon mailing. Hand-deliveries must be made to the clerk's office at 1100 Commerce Street, Room 1452, Dallas, Texas 75242, must be enclosed in a sealed envelope that bears the name of the judge to whom the courtesy copy is directed, and must identify itself as a "Courtesy Copy." The court will not accept hand deliveries brought directly to chambers unless it specifically instructs a party to do so. Please Note: If this case or any portion of this case is referred to a United States Magistrate Judge, the magistrate judge may enter an order with additional specific requirements. Please see the magistrate judge's order for details. 4. Proposed Orders: A proposed order must be submitted with every
motion via e-mail as instructed under the ECF system's "Proposed Orders" event. The subject line of the e-mail transmitting the proposed order must be complete as directed in the instructions. 5. Documents That Require Leave of Court to File: A party who moves for leave of court to file an amended pleading, or for leave of court to file any other document (e.g., surreply, document exceeding the page limit, etc.), must attach the proposed document as an exhibit to the motion for leave. If the motion for leave is granted, the moving party must THEN
Standing Order Designating Case for Enrollment in ECF - Page 4
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-5
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 5 of 6
submit the document for which leave was granted within three business days AFTER leave is granted, unless otherwise ordered by the court. Attorneys are cautioned not to prematurely file a document that requires leave of court to file. 6. Privacy Policy: Counsel must ensure that all documents filed with the court strictly comply with the privacy policy of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The privacy policy restricts the use and manner of use of certain types of information, including: social security numbers, driver license numbers, tax
identification numbers, minors' names, birth dates, financial account numbers, credit card numbers, medical records, employment histories, proprietary or trade secret information, crime victim information, national security information, sensitive security information as described in 49 U.S.C. § 114(s), and information regarding an individual's cooperation with the government. The complete privacy policy may be found at
http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/pdf/TXNprivnot.pdf. 7. Questions: ECF questions should be directed to the Office of the Clerk at (214)753-2200 or the ECF Help Desk at (866) 243-2866.
Standing Order Designating Case for Enrollment in ECF - Page 5
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-5
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 6 of 6
ATTACHMENT 1
COURTESY COPY REQUIREMENTS
JUDGE
A. Joe Fish
COPY REQUIREMENTS
Civil and Criminal Cases: ALL FILINGS
MAILED TO:
1100 Commerce Street, Room 1528 Dallas, TX 75242 1100 Commerce Street, Room 1520 Dallas, TX 75242 1100 Commerce Street, Room 1654 Dallas, TX 75242
Sidney A. Fitzwater Jorge A. Solis
Civil and Criminal Cases: ALL FILINGS
Civil and Criminal Cases: ALL FILINGS, including Proposed Orders No Courtesy Copies Required Civil Cases: All Dispositive Motions, Responses, Replies and Appendices thereto and any document over 25 pages in length Criminal Cases: ALL FILINGS Civil Cases: All Dispositive Motions, Responses, Replies and Appendices thereto and any document over 25 pages in length Criminal Cases: ALL FILINGS Civil Cases: All Dispositive Motions, Responses, Replies, and Appendices thereto and any document over 25 pages in length Criminal Cases: ALL FILINGS Civil and Criminal Cases: All Dispositive Motions, Responses, Replies, and Appendices thereto Civil and Criminal Cases: All Dispositive Motions, Responses, Replies, and Appendices thereto (including Joint Submissions)
David C. Godbey Sam A. Lindsay
1100 Commerce Street, Room 1312 Dallas, TX 75242
Barbara M.G. Lynn
1100 Commerce Street, Room 1572 Dallas, TX 75242 Note: Hand-deliveries to chambers are allowed. 1100 Commerce Street, Room 1625 Dallas, TX 75242
Ed Kinkeade
Jane J. Boyle
1100 Commerce Street, Room 1376 Dallas, TX 75242 1100 Commerce Street, Room 1544 Dallas, TX 75242
Jerry Buchmeyer
Standing Order Designating Case for Enrollment in ECF - Page 6
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-6
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION IN RE SUBPOENA ISSUED TO COMPUSA, INC. 3-07 mc 0017-N related case: 3-07 mc 0018-P
RESPONDENT LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS RESPONSE TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT: Plaintiff/Respondent LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPL") hereby opposes the Motion for Protective Order tardily filed by Defendants Tatung Company and Tatung Company of America, Inc. (collectively "Tatung") with respect to the third party subpoena served by LPL on CompUSA, Inc. (See Appendix RESP 0002-00015). The matter presented to this Court concerns Motions to Quash deposition subpoenaes filed by the Defendant Tatung, not by the proposed deponents, who are not parties to the Main Case. Tatung has filed numerous motions in various district courts, including this Court, to quash LPL's deposition subpoenaes served on a number of third party witnesses in a patent infringement action pending in the United States District Court in Delaware filed as Case Number 04-cv-00343-JJF, ("Main Case"). For the reasons explained in LPL's contemporaneously filed Brief in Support of this Response, LPL requests that this matter be transferred to the District Court in Delaware, or alternatively, that Tatung's motion be denied.
doc 146916
1
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-6
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 2 of 3
Respectfully Submitted,
s/Frank L. Broyles Frank L. Broyles Texas State Bar #03230500 GOINS, UNDERKOFLER, CRAWFORD & LANGDON, LLP 1201 ELM ST. SUITE 4800 DALLAS, TX 75270 (214) 969-5454 (214 969-5902 TELECOPY
Attorneys for Respondent LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.
On March 15, 2007, a genuine copy of the foregoing and referenced Appendix was served via email on the persons shown on the service list attached on the next page. Additionally, a copy will be served by First Class Mail on March 16, 2007. s/Frank L. Broyles
doc 146916
2
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-6
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 3 of 3
SERVICE LIST: 07-0017 & 07-0018 NDTX
Richard D. Kirk The Bayard Firm 222 Delaware Ave. Ste 900 Wilmington, DE 19899 Jeffrey B. Bove James D. Heisman Jaclyn M. Mason CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP 1007 N. Orange St. P.O. Box 2207 Wilmington, DE 19899 Scott R. Miller CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP 355 S. Grand Ave. Suite 3150 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tracy R. Roman RASKIN PETER RUBIN & SIMON LLP 1801 Century Park East, Ste 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Frederick L. Cottrell, III Anne Shea Gasa, RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER, PA One Rodney Square P.O. Box 551 Wilmington, DE 19899 Penelope Brobst Blackwell Email List:
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-7
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 1 of 12
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION IN RE SUBPOENA ISSUED TO COMPUSA, INC. 3-07 mc 0017-N related case: 3-07 mc 0018-P
RESPONDENT LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS RESPONSE TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT: Plaintiff/Respondent LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPL") hereby opposes the tardily filed Motion for Protective Order filed by Defendants Tatung Company and Tatung Company of America, Inc. (collectively "Tatung") with respect to the third party subpoena served by LPL on CompUSA, Inc. (See Appendix RESP 0002-00015).1 LPL requests that the Court exercise its discretion to transfer the instant motion to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In the alternative, LPL requests that the Court deny the Motion and allow LPL to proceed with necessary and appropriate third party discovery. This Motion for Protective Order has not been filed by the party who received the subpoena from LPL. Rather, Tatung, a defendant in the underlying case, in a blatant attempt to interfere with this and other proper subpoenas, has filed this motion in an effort to prevent third parties from producing what LPL knows will be extensive evidence against Tatung of both infringement and inducement to infringe the patents in the underlying suit. Further, Tatung's efforts are designed to prevent LPL from obtaining necessary third party discovery prior to the deadline of March 30, 2007. LPL has filed a motion with the Special Discovery Master in the underlying case seeking an order that prevents Tatung from taking such actions and also seeking an extension of third party discovery due to Tatung's improper conduct.
1
References to RESP 000 - -, refer to pages in Appendix filed herewith.
Doc 146911
Page 1
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-7
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 2 of 12
I.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
This discovery dispute arises out of a patent infringement action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware ("Main Case"). LPL is the owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,498,718 ("the `718 Patent") and U.S. Patent No. 6,501,641 ("the `641 Patent") (collectively, the "Patents-in-Suit"), which relate to mounting systems used in visual display products such as liquid crystal display ("LCD") computer monitors, laptop computers, and televisions. LPL has asserted patent infringement claims against Tatung and ViewSonic The Defendants manufacture
Corporation ("ViewSonic") (collectively, the "Defendants").
visual display products, which LPL alleges utilize LPL's patented techniques. Among its claims, LPL alleges that Defendants have induced other parties, including the party to whom the instant Subpoena was served, to infringe LPL's patents.2 On December 27, 2006, LPL served a third party subpoena on Hewlett-Packard Company. On February 13 and 14, 2007, LPL served approximately 23 other third party subpoenas ("Subpoenas") on various distributors, retailers, and purchasers of Defendants' products in the United States. The Subpoenas were issued based on LPL's understanding that these parties, who have current or former business relationships with Tatung and ViewSonic, have documents that are relevant to the instant action, including but not limited to, documents related to purchase and sale of the infringing products in the United States, documents relating to Defendants' efforts to market the infringing products in the United States, and other important
2
"A person induces infringement under § 271(b) by actively and knowingly aiding and abetting another's direct infringement." C. R. Bard, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 911 F.2d 670, 675 (Fed. Cir. 1990). If the defendant has knowledge of the patent, then upon a showing that defendant "had intent to induce the specific acts constituting infringement, intent additionally to cause an infringement can be presumed." MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp., 420 F.3d 1369, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2005). A jury could conclude that e-mails between a foreign defendant and a U.S. company "represent product support" showing that the defendant was aware of potentially infringing activities in the U.S. by the U.S. company and that the defendant "intended to encourage those activities." Id. at 1379-80. See also Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Chemque, Inc., 303 F.3d 1294, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (evidence did not support finding of no inducement where defendant was aware of patents and supplied infringing products to customers "with instructions on how they were to be used, which, when followed, would lead to infringement."); Crystal Semiconductor Corp. v. Tritech Microelectronics Int'l, Inc., 246 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (defendant's acts in connection with selling infringing audio chips, manufactured in Singapore and sold to customer that resold to the U.S. PC market, constituted active inducement).
Doc 146911
Page 2
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-7
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 3 of 12
discovery concerning infringement, inducement, damages, and other issues.3 While a small handful of these third parties were served with subpoenas during the jurisdictional phase of this case, the new subpoenas are materially and justifiable broader. Based on information available to LPL and LPL's belief, the third parties are likely to have information showing that the Defendants have imported, sold, and used their products in the United States, activities which infringe upon LPL's U.S. patents and which support LPL's claims of direct infringement or inducement of infringement. In addition, the Subpoenas requested that all documents be produced by March 5, 2007, and that depositions occur between March 12 and March 27, 2007, consistent with the March 30 deadline for third party discovery in this case. LPL provided notice and copies of the Subpoenas to the Defendants prior to the service of the Subpoenas. During a telephone conference on January 30, 2007, Tatung indicated for the first time that it intended to file a motion for protective order with respect to the Subpoena directed to Hewlett-Packard, but Tatung never did so.4 More than one month later, on March 5, Tatung again threatened to file additional motions for protective orders with respect to the later served 23 Subpoenas. In addition, even though Tatung had received the second batch of Subpoenas nearly three weeks earlier, Tatung indicated that some or all of such motions would be made on an ex parte basis because of the upcoming return dates on the Subpoenas, which incidentally was that same day. (See Ex. 2, Emails
LPL has also sought the same information and documents, unsuccessfully, from the Defendants. Defendants have produced some - but certainly not all discovery that LPL seeks. Notably, much of Defendants' production is subject to objections and limitations that LPL disputes and which are the subject of related discovery motions already pending before the Special Discovery Master in the Main Case in the District of Delaware, as described more fully herein.
4
3
To date, Hewlett-Packard has produced more than 5000 pages of relevant, responsive documents. HewlettPackard's agreement to produce and subsequent production belies Tatung's argument that the Subpoenas are burdensome to the third parties, particularly because the majority of the third parties are smaller entities with far fewer responsive documents. Moreover, Hewlett-Packard produced many "Process Management Plans," documents that LPL asserts are essential to its infringement claims. Incredibly, Tatung denied the existence of such documents and refused to produce them in response to numerous requests from LPL. Tatung's failure to produce these documents underscores how critical it is for LPL to obtain the discovery that is being sought from the third parties.
Doc 146911
Page 3
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-7
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 4 of 12
between V. Ho and C. Connor (Mar. 5-7, 2007). RESP 00017-20). Tatung claimed to have standing to raise any such objections on behalf of the third parties because it claimed that the Subpoenas pertained to Tatung's still unresolved objections to the scope of discovery in the Main Case. Tatung never explained why it had waited several weeks before raising its objections, but merely stated that it intended to file its motions on an ex parte basis. See id. In an exchange of emails, LPL strenuously objected to Tatung's position that it could file ex parte motions on any issue in the case, including any issues related to the third party subpoenas served by LPL. See id. In addition, LPL further reiterated its position that Tatung had no standing to raise objections to the Subpoenas, principally, because Tatung has never proved why any documents now in the custody of third parties are confidential, trade secrets, or otherwise shielded from discovery. See id, RESP 00017-20. Nonetheless, Tatung filed the instant Motion, along with approximately 22 other Motions related to the various Subpoenas served by LPL. Tatung filed the Motions for Protective Order without regard for the fact that several of the third parties had either already produced the requested documents or agreed to produce the requested documents with objection. Indeed, several third parties have agreed to produce the requested documents even after learning that Tatung had filed Motions related to the Subpoenas, which further undermines Tatung's arguments in its Motion. Nonetheless, due to Tatung's interference and improper motions, there are also certain third parties who have now refused to produce the requested discovery after they had already agreed to comply with the subpoenas. See, e.g. Ex. 3 at RESP 00021-23. II. ARGUMENT
Under Rule 26(c), Tatung bears the burden of establishing that a protective order should be granted. Cipollone v. Liggett Group, Inc., 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3d Cir. 1986). To meet its burden, "the party seeking the protective order must show good cause by demonstrating a particular need for protection. Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test." See id; United States v. Garrett, 571 F.2d 1323, 1326, n. 3 (5th Cir. 1978) (requiring "a particular and specific demonstration of fact
Doc 146911
Page 4
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-7
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 5 of 12
as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements"); General Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Corp., 481 F.2d 1204, 1212 (8th Cir.1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 1162, 94 S.Ct. 926, 39 L.Ed.2d 116 (1974); 8 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2035 (1970 & Supp.1985). Moreover, it is clear that the harm described by the movant must be significant, not a mere trifle. See, e.g., Joy v. North, 692 F.2d 880, 894 (2d Cir.1982) (refusing protective order where proponent's only argument in its favor was the broad allegations that the disclosure of certain information would "injure the bank in the industry and local community"), cert. denied sub nom. Citytrust v. Joy, 460 U.S. 1051, 103 S.Ct. 1498, 75 L.Ed.2d 930 (1983). Tatung has failed to meet its high burden with respect to this Motion. A. The Court Should Exercise Its Discretion to Transfer Tatung's Motion to the District of Delaware
The Court has the authority to transfer Defendants' Motion for Protective Order to the District of Delaware. See Devlin v. Transportation Communications International Union, 2000 WL 249286, *1 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (stating that there is ample authority for the court from which a subpoena issues to transfer any motions relating to that subpoena back to the court where the main case is pending); Digital Equipment Corp., 949 F.2d 228, 231 (8th Cir. 1991) (holding that while the court initially has exclusive jurisdiction to rule on the objections, it may in its discretion remit the matter to the court in which the action is pending).5 As explained above, all 23 motions filed by LPL are nearly identical. Yet, by having the Motions heard in 15 or more different jurisdictions, the parties risk that inconsistent opinions will be rendered. Moreover, the hearings on all of these motions will be very time consuming and will further interfere with LPL's attempts to finalize discovery in the Main Case, in which depositions of Tatung's witnesses are currently being taken. Thus, for the reasons cited above, LPL requests that the Court formally transfer this dispute back to the District of Delaware, the
See also Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), advisory committee's note. The Advisory Committee's Note to Rule 26(c) (Protective Orders) explains: The subdivision recognizes the power of the court in the district where a deposition is being taken to make protective orders...The court in the district where the deposition is being taken may, and frequently will, remit the deponent or party to the court where the action is pending.
5
Doc 146911
Page 5
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-7
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 6 of 12
court where the Main Case is pending, so that all 23 motions and oppositions can be heard en masse. B. Tatung Lacks Standing to Challenge the Subpoenas
Tatung does not have standing to raise any objections to LPL's Rule 45 subpoenas. Rule 45(c) provides protection to persons "subject to subpoenas." Indeed, "[u]nless a party to an action can make claim to some personal right or privilege in respect to the subject matter of a subpoena duces tecum directed to a nonparty witness, the party to the action has no right to relief under Rule 45(b) or 30(b)." Dart Industries, Inc. v. Liquid Nitrogen Processing, 50 F.R.D. 286, 291 (D. Del. 1970).6 Tatung attempts to distinguish the Dart decision on two grounds. First, Tatung argues that the motion in Dart was premised on Rule 45(c), rather than Rule 26(c), which was relied upon by Tatung. However, the standards for protective orders under both rules is the same. See Advisory Committee Notes to the 1970 Amendment to Rule 45 (the "scope of discovery through a subpoena is the same as that applicable to Rule 34 and other discovery rules.") Thus, Rule 45 clearly incorporates the standards set forth in Rule 26. Tatung also attempts to distinguish Dart on the ground that the moving party in Dart did not assert any personal privilege in the requested documents. Similarly however, in this case, while Tatung has stated, in a conclusory manner, that it has a personal stake in the documents to be produced, Tatung has failed to provide any particularized facts or evidence to support its conclusions. Such statements are insufficient for Tatung to meet its burden in establishing that it is entitled to a Protective Order. Cipollone, 785 F.2d at 1121. In addition, Tatung fails to explain why the Protective Order entered in the Main Case, which governs the use and disclosure of confidential information, does not adequately protect the information to be produced by the third
6
See also, Ponsford v. United States, 771 F.2d 1305, 1308 (9th Cir. 1985) (denying motion to quash for lack of standing); Nova Products, Inc. v. Kisma Video, Inc., 220 F.R.D. 238, 241 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (denying motion to quash because no showing of personal right or privilege); Oliver B. Cannon and Son, Inc. v. Fidelity and Cas. Co. of New York, 519 F. Supp. 668, 680 (D. Del. 1981) (denying motion to quash because movant failed to prove documents sought were privileged).
Doc 146911
Page 6
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-7
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 7 of 12
parties. Indeed, by Tatung's own admission, it has already produced documents designated as "Highly Sensitive Confidential" in the Main Case under the Protective Order. Yet, Tatung's arguments suggest that such a course of action is not good enough for the third parties, even though the Protective Order clearly applies to non-parties as well. Ex. 4 at RESP 00024-39. Here, Tatung has not identified any particular harm that would necessitate a Protective Order. Moreover, Tatung has no basis to object to the information sought by LPL's subpoenas and, thus, does not have standing to move for a Protective Order with respect to any of LPL's subpoenas. As such, Tatung has evidently filed these motions solely to delay and impede LPL's discovery efforts. C. Tatung's Motion Is Nothing More Than An Attempt to Interfere With LPL's Legitimate Third Party Discovery
Tatung's interference with valid third party discovery is inappropriate and is nothing more than an attempt to delay the third party discovery until after the March 30, 2007 discovery deadline. Indeed, on March 7, 2007, LPL received a telephone message from Sensormatic, who had previously agreed to produce the documents requested in the Subpoena. In that message, Sensormatic stated that Tatung told Sensormatic that it planned to move for a protective order. Sensormatic further expressed concern about being in the middle of the dispute between the parties regarding the Subpoena. As a result, Sensormatic has not produced documents yet despite its earlier agreement to do so. On March 8, 2007, LPL received correspondence from Tyco Electronics Corp. ("Tyco"), who LPL had also served with a Subpoena. (See Ex. 3, RESP 00021-23). Prior to that date, Tyco had also agreed to produce documents in response to the Subpoena. In the correspondence on March 8, however, Tyco stated that, "I understand that [Tatung] intends to file a motion for protective order with regard to this subpoena. In light of this, Tyco will await the disposition of this motion by the court before providing any material in response to the subpoena." (Id.) These communications clearly show that Tatung's motions are delaying LPL's legitimate discovery in this action.
Doc 146911
Page 7
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-7
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 8 of 12
Tatung has also taken steps to disrupt third party discovery in at least one other case. See Safer Display Technology, Ltd. v. Tatung Co., 227 F.R.D. 435 (E.D. Va. 2004) (copy attached hereto at RESP 00083). In that case, represented by the same counsel as in the Main Case, Tatung engaged in similar delays before it finally withdrew its jurisdictional defense. See Safer Display, 227 F.R.D. at 437. Notably, in Safer Display, Tatung worked diligently to impede third party discovery by contacting and attempting to dissuade third parties from producing discovery, (see Ex. 6 at RESP 00092-93), and filing motions for protective orders for which Tatung lacked standing, (see id. at RESP 00093-94). Tatung's continuing pattern of dilatory tactics and improper interference with LPL's discovery efforts should not be allowed to continue. D. LPL Has Been Unsuccessful In Obtaining the Discovery It Seeks From the Defendants, Who Have Refused to Produce the Requested Documents
LPL needs the discovery that it seeks from the third parties because the fact discovery in the Main Case will close on March 30, 2007 and because Tatung has not cooperated with LPL's discovery efforts. Indeed, Tatung misrepresents the volume and the sufficiency of its document production to date. Although LPL's discovery requests were served on November 29, 2005, Tatung has refused to fully comply with those requests by, among other things, imposing unreasonable limitations and conditions on their production. LPL filed motions to compel in the Main Case that addressed issues common to all Defendants in the Main Case in September, October, November, and December 2006 and in January, February, and March 2007. Most of these issues have not yet been resolved and many of those unresolved issues relate directly to Tatung's instant Motion for Protective Order. For instance, although Tatung has identified over 300 potentially infringing products, it only produced about 60 technical drawings and then claimed, without explaining their calculations, that this fractional production covered as much as 96% of their products. Additionally, after telling LPL for months that it had produced all technical documents, Tatung has only recently revealed, but not yet fully produced, additional categories of critically relevant technical drawings. Tatung has informed LPL that it will
Doc 146911
Page 8
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-7
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 9 of 12
complete its supplemental production in April, which is well after the March 30 deadline for third party discovery. Tatung argues that the third parties should not be required to produce documents, in part, because Tatung has objected to the scope of LPL's requests. Tatung correctly notes that the Special Discovery Master in the Main Case has not yet ruled on these issues. This is precisely the reason that LPL seeks discovery from the third parties. Tatung has refused to produce relevant documents and the Special Discovery Master has not ruled on Tatung's objections or on LPL's motions to compel that production. Notably, the subpoena itself is not limited to
documents relating to Tatung in the possession of the third party as the subpoena also seeks documents relating to ViewSonic, another defendant in the Main case who has not objected to these subpoenas. All fact discovery, including third party discovery, in the Main Case closes on March 30, 2007. After that date, LPL will not be able to seek further discovery from any third party. Thus, in order to compile all relevant evidence and properly prepare its case for trial, LPL needs discovery from the third parties so that it can test the sufficiency and completeness of Tatung's own production. There have been no rulings in the Main Case that would limit LPL's ability to obtain the scope of discovery that it seeks from the third parties. Indeed, contrary to Tatung's statement that the Special Discovery Master's "impending ruling" will be favorable to Tatung, neither party can predict in whose favor the Special Discovery Master will rule. E. The Scope of the Subpoena is Reasonable, And In Any Event, Tatung's Objections are Misplaced
In its Motion, Tatung argues that any discovery should be limited to the accused products. This, however, is precisely why LPL issued the Subpoenas. In its Complaint, LPL identified to Tatung an example of a product that LPL alleged to infringe the Patents-in-Suit. However, because Tatung makes hundreds of products, most of which are sold under brand names belonging to third parties, LPL needs third party discovery to determine which of Tatung's hundreds of products use infringing technology.
Doc 146911
Page 9
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-7
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 10 of 12
In light of the Delaware Court's Scheduling Order, requiring that third party discovery be completed by March 30, Tatung's efforts to limit the scope of LPL's subpoena to products that have been accused of infringement will artificially narrow the scope of the subpoena to products that are currently accused, even though that list will likely expand in April, after LPL finally receives Tatung's supplemental document production. In addition, Tatung's objections to the scope of the Subpoena are misplaced. Specifically, objections based on burden or scope of a Subpoena should be made by the party upon whom the Subpoena is served. As the burden will not be borne by Tatung, Tatung does not have standing to raise that issue. To the extent that Tatung believes that the documents produced by third parties are not relevant to the litigation, or exceed the bounds of admissible evidence, Tatung can raise those arguments in advance of trial. See Cook v. Rockwell Intern. Corp., 935 F.Supp. 1452, 1465 (D.Colo. 1996) ("Defendants had no standing to object to the breadth of the order [with respect to third party subpoena] but were restricted to appropriate objections as to relevance and admissibility before trial.") Notably, Tatung filed the Motions for Protective Order without regard for the fact that several of the third parties had either already produced the requested documents or agreed to produce the requested documents with objection. As the party to whom the Subpoena was served has not filed a Motion for Protective Order with respect to the breadth of the Subpoena, Tatung's objection on that basis should be denied. III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, LPL requests that the Court exercise its discretion to transfer the instant motion to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In the alternative, LPL requests that the Court deny the Motion and allow LPL to proceed with necessary third party discovery.
Doc 146911
Page 10
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-7
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 11 of 12
Respectfully Submitted,
s/Frank L. Broyles Frank L. Broyles Texas State Bar #03230500 GOINS, UNDERKOFLER, CRAWFORD & LANGDON, LLP 1201 ELM ST. SUITE 4800 DALLAS, TX 75270 (214) 969-5454 (214 969-5902 TELECOPY
Attorneys for Respondent LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.
On March 15, 2007, a genuine copy of the foregoing and referenced Appendix was served via email on the persons shown on the service list attached on the next page. Additionally, a copy will be served by first class mail on March 16, 2007. s/Frank L. Broyles
Doc 146911
Page 11
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-7
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 12 of 12
SERVICE LIST: 07-0017 & 07-0018 NDTX
Richard D. Kirk The Bayard Firm 222 Delaware Ave. Ste 900 Wilmington, DE 19899 Jeffrey B. Bove James D. Heisman Jaclyn M. Mason CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP 1007 N. Orange St. P.O. Box 2207 Wilmington, DE 19899 Scott R. Miller CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP 355 S. Grand Ave. Suite 3150 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tracy R. Roman RASKIN PETER RUBIN & SIMON LLP 1801 Century Park East, Ste 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Frederick L. Cottrell, III Anne Shea Gasa, RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER, PA One Rodney Square P.O. Box 551 Wilmington, DE 19899 Penelope Brobst Blackwell Email List:
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 1 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 2 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 3 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 4 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 5 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 6 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 7 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 8 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 9 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 10 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 11 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 12 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 13 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 14 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 15 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 16 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 17 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 18 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 19 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 20 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 21 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 22 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 23 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 24 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 25 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 26 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 27 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 28 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 29 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 30 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 31 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 32 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 33 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 34 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 35 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 36 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 37 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 38 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 39 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 40 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 41 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 42 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 43 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 44 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 45 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 46 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 47 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 48 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 49 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 50 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 51 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 52 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 53 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 54 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 55 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 56 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 57 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 58 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 59 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 60 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 61 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 62 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 63 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 64 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 65 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 66 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 67 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 68 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 69 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 70 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 71 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 72 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 73 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 74 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 75 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 76 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 77 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 78 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 79 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 80 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 81 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 82 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 83 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 84 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 85 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 86 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 87 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 88 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 89 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 90 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 91 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 92 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 93 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 94 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 95 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 96 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 97 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 98 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 99 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 100 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 101 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 102 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-8
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 103 of 103
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-9
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 1 of 3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION IN RE SUBPOENA ISSUED TO COMPUSA, INC. 3-07 mc 0017-N related case: 3-07 mc 0018-P
RESPONDENT LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S CORRECTED RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT: Plaintiff/Respondent LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPL") hereby opposes the Motion for Protective Order tardily filed by Defendants Tatung Company and Tatung Company of America, Inc. (collectively "Tatung") with respect to the third party subpoena served by LPL on CompUSA, Inc. (See Appendix RESP 0002-00015). The matter presented to this Court concerns Motions to Quash deposition subpoenaes filed by the Defendant Tatung, not by the proposed deponents, who are not parties to the Main Case. Tatung has filed numerous motions in various district courts, including this Court, to quash LPL's deposition subpoenaes served on a number of third party witnesses in a patent infringement action pending in the United States District Court in Delaware filed as Case Number 04-cv-00343-JJF, ("Main Case"). For the reasons explained in LPL's contemporaneously filed Brief in Support of this Response, LPL requests that this matter be transferred to the District Court in Delaware, or alternatively, that Tatung's motion be denied.
doc 146916
1
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-9
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 2 of 3
Respectfully Submitted,
s/Frank L. Broyles Frank L. Broyles Texas State Bar #03230500 GOINS, UNDERKOFLER, CRAWFORD & LANGDON, LLP 1201 ELM ST. SUITE 4800 DALLAS, TX 75270 (214) 969-5454 (214 969-5902 TELECOPY
Attorneys for Respondent LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.
On March 15, 2007, a genuine copy of the foregoing and referenced Appendix was served via email on the persons shown on the service list attached on the next page. Additionally, a copy will be served by First Class Mail on March 16, 2007. s/Frank L. Broyles
doc 146916
2
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-9
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 3 of 3
SERVICE LIST: 07-0017 & 07-0018 NDTX
Richard D. Kirk The Bayard Firm 222 Delaware Ave. Ste 900 Wilmington, DE 19899 Jeffrey B. Bove James D. Heisman Jaclyn M. Mason CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP 1007 N. Orange St. P.O. Box 2207 Wilmington, DE 19899 Scott R. Miller CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE & HUTZ LLP 355 S. Grand Ave. Suite 3150 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Tracy R. Roman RASKIN PETER RUBIN & SIMON LLP 1801 Century Park East, Ste 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Frederick L. Cottrell, III Anne Shea Gasa, RICHARDS LAYTON & FINGER, PA One Rodney Square P.O. Box 551 Wilmington, DE 19899 Penelope Brobst Blackwell Email List: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
doc 146916
3
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-10
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-10
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-10
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 3 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-11
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-11
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-12
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-12
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-13
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF
Document 12-14
Filed 03/28/2007
Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-00183-JJF Document 12-15 Filed COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT 03/28/2007
Page 1 of 1
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Division: Dallas
3/30/07
Clerk of Court U.S. District Court 844 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801
SUBJECT: 3:07-mc-00018 In Re Subpoena issued to CompUSA Dear Deputy Clerk: The above action has been transferred to your court. Enclosed is a certified copy of the transfer order and docket sheet. You may access electronically filed documents at our DCN CM/ECF web address: https://ecf.txnd.uscourts.gov. A guest login and password may be found on our website at: http://ntnet.txnd.circ5.dcn/pdf/irc/guest_login.pdf. Once logged into our CM/ECF database, you can query the case and download or print the PDFs for your court's file. If you find our headers at the top of each document to be a problem, they can be removed by going through Utilities, Maintain Your Account, and turning off the PDF Header before you download or print the documents. Any documents not available electronically are enclosed in paper format. Please acknowledge receipt of the certified copy of the transfer order, docket sheet and original documents, if any, by email to the Intake Section of the appropriate division:
Please reference our case number and brief style in the subject of your email acknowledgment.
Sincerely, KAREN MITCHELL Clerk of Court
Free Case Transferred In - District Transfer - District Court of Delaware - Delaware
| File Size: | 9,345.5 kB |
| Pages: | 247 |
| Date: | September 8, 2008 |
| File Format: | |
| State: | Delaware |
| Category: | District Court of Delaware |
| Author: | unknown |
| Word Count: | 9,838 Words, 58,813 Characters |
| Page Size: | 622 x 792 pts |
| URL |
https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/38007/12.pdf |
| Download Case Transferred In - District Transfer - District Court of Delaware ( 9,345.5 kB) |
Preview Case Transferred In - District Transfer - District Court of Delaware
Popular Searches
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms