Free Case Transferred In - District Transfer - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.4 - Docket Report

https://ecf.wawd.circ9.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114978024313516-L_353_0-1

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 1 of 3
CLOSED

U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Western District of Washington (Seattle) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07-cv-00398-MJP Internal Use Only

L. G. Philips LCD Co., Ltd. et al v. Tatung Company et al Assigned to: Hon. Marsha J. Pechman Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question Plaintiff L. G. Philips LCD Co., Ltd.

Date Filed: 03/08/2007 Date Terminated: 03/20/2007 Nature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory Actions Jurisdiction: Federal Question

represented by Ronald C Gardner GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI MCDONALD & CLEMENT 2200 6TH AVE STE 600 SEATTLE, WA 98121 206-256-6309 Fax: FAX 256-6318 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Tatung Company represented by Stacie Foster YARMUTH WILSDON CALFO 925 FOURTH AVE STE 2500 SEATTLE, WA 98104 206-516-3800 Fax: 206-516-3888 Email: [email protected] LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Tatung Company of America, Inc. represented by Stacie Foster (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Viewsonic Corporation In Re Amazon.com, Inc.

Date Filed 03/08/2007

#

Docket Text 1 MOTION for a Protective Order Limiting Scope of Third Party Deposition and Subpoena and Request for Expedited Hearing. ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED. Noted for Hearing March 19, 2007, 9:00 AM by Defendants Tatung Company, Tatung Company of America, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Jackson Chang # 2 Proposed Order Granting Defendant's Motion for Protective Order # 3 Certificate of Service).(DB, ) Modified on 3/9/2007 (DB, ). (Entered: 03/09/2007) Set Oral Argument on 1 MOTION for Protective Order : Motion Hearing set for 3/19/2007 at 09:00 AM (DB, ) (Entered: 03/09/2007) 2 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff L. G. Philips LCD Co., Ltd., to 1 MOTION for Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 Exhibit 2 to Expedited Hearing Opposition# 3 Exhibit 3 to Expedited Hearing Opposition# 4 Exhibit 4 to Expedited Hearing Opposition# 5 Exhibit 5 to Expedited Hearing Opposition# 6 Exhibit 6 to Expedited Hearing Opposition# 7 Exhibit 7 to Expedited Hearing Opposition# 8 Exhibit 8 to Expedited Hearing Opposition)(Gardner, Ronald) (Entered: 03/14/2007) 3 RESPONSE, by Plaintiff L. G. Philips LCD Co., Ltd., to 1 MOTION for Protective Order. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 to Protective Order Opposition# 2 Exhibit 2 to Protective Order Opposition# 3 Exhibit 3 to Protective Order Opposition# 4 Exhibit 4 to Protective Order Opposition# 5 Exhibit 5 to Protective Order Opposition# 6 Exhibit 6 to Protective Order Opposition)(Gardner, Ronald) (Entered: 03/14/2007) 4 The following MINUTE ORDER is made at the direction of the Court and by the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez: The Court is aware that there has been some confusion with respect to oral argument in this case. The Court acknowledges that oral argument has been requested; HOWEVER, that request has not yet been granted. Such request will be considered by the presiding judge assigned to this case. Accordingly, there is NO oral argument set for March 19, 2007, and this Court apologizes for any confusion. (SES) (Entered: 03/15/2007) (Court only) ***Deadlines/Hearings terminated. Oral argument is NOT set for March 19, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Martinez. (SES) (Entered: 03/15/2007)

03/08/2007 03/14/2007

03/14/2007

03/15/2007

03/15/2007

1 of 2

03/20/2007 9:50 AM

WAWD CM/ECF Version 3.0.4 - Docket Report

https://ecf.wawd.circ9.dcn/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?114978024313516-L_353_0-1

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF
03/15/2007 03/15/2007

Document 9

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case Reassigned to Judge Marsha J. Pechman. Judge Ricardo S Martinez no longer assigned to the case. (KN, ) (Entered: 03/15/2007) MINUTE ENTRY: Pursuant to counsels' objections to Motion for Protective Order, case number MS07-30, originally assigned to the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez, is now assigned a civil case number C07-398 and is reassigned in rotation to the Honorable Marsha J. Pechman. ALL FUTURE PLEADINGS MUST NOW BEAR THE NEWLY ASSIGNED CIVIL CAUSE NUMBER. (KN, ) (Entered: 03/15/2007) 5 REPLY, filed by Defendants Tatung Company, Tatung Company of America, Inc., TO RESPONSE to 1 MOTION for Protective Order (Foster, Stacie) (Entered: 03/19/2007) 6 DECLARATION of Charlene L. Oh filed by Defendants Tatung Company, Tatung Company of America, Inc. re 1 MOTION for Protective Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Rough Transcript of Hearing# 2 Exhibit Florida Order# 3 Exhibit Minnesota Order# 4 Exhibit Decl of Donald Fischbach# 5 Exhibit 2-27 Ltr from Ho to Connor# 6 Exhibit 3-5 Meet and Confer email# 7 Exhibit 3-2-07 Ltr to Special Master# 8 Exhibit 3-1-07 Ltr from Ho to Ambrozy)(Foster, Stacie) (Entered: 03/19/2007) 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Defendants Tatung Company, Tatung Company of America, Inc. re 6 Declaration, 5 Reply to Response to Motion. (Foster, Stacie) (Entered: 03/19/2007) 8 ORDER - The Court orders that this case be transferred to the US District Court for the District of Delaware by Judge Marsha J. Pechman. (MD, ) (Entered: 03/20/2007)

03/19/2007 03/19/2007

03/19/2007 03/20/2007

2 of 2

03/20/2007 9:50 AM

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 3 of 3

I hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct copy of the docket on file at the Western District of Washington

BRUCE RIFKIN, Clerk

By

S/Mary Duett Deputy Clerk

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 1 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 2 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 3 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 4 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 5 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 6 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 7 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 8 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 9 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 10 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 11 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 12 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 13 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 14 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 15 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 16 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 17 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 18 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 19 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 20 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 21 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 22 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 23 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 24 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 25 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 26 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-2

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 27 of 27

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-3

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 1 of 1

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-4

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-4

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-5

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-5

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-5

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 3 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-6

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 1 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 v. TATUNG COMPANY, TATUNG COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC., and VIEWSONIC CORPORATION, Defendant. L.G. PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD, Plaintiff,

The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

No. MS 07-0030-RSM PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING AND MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING Noted for Hearing March 19, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.

Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPL") hereby opposes the Request for Expedited Hearing filed by Defendants Tatung Company and Tatung Company of America, Inc. (collectively "Tatung") in relation to the third party subpoena served on Amazon.com, Inc. by LPL. Ex. 1. LPL

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

requests that Tatung's motion for expedited hearing be denied and that, in any event, the Court schedule a hearing at a time when LPL's Washington, D.C. counsel is available and allow LPL to participate in the hearing by telephone. Tatung failed to confer with LPL about possible hearing dates, failed to provide sufficient notice to LPL of its motion, and purposely scheduled numerous such motions around the country on the same day. This motion involves extensive factual issues, thus necessitating that LPL's Washington, D.C. counsel present argument to the Court. For these reasons, LPL respectfully requests that it be permitted to appear by telephone or that the hearing date be rescheduled for a date when LPL's counsel may appear and be heard. PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING AND MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING - 1
MS-07-0030 RSM GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S

2200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 TELEPHONE (206) 256-6309 FACSIMILE (206) 256-6318

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-6

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 2 of 9

1 2 3 4

I.

STATEMENT OF FACTS This matter involves a subpoena issued by LPL in relation to discovery in a patent

infringement action pending in the United States District Court in Delaware ("Main Case"). 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

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

("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 Corporation ("ViewSonic"), another Defendant in the underlying case, 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, documents relating to Defendants' technical specifications, and other important discovery concerning infringement, inducement, damages, and other issues.1 The Subpoenas seek documents and information related solely to the products at issue in this action. 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.2 More than one month later, on March 5, Tatung again threatened to file
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 numerous discovery motions already pending before the Special Discovery Master in the Main Case in the District of Delaware, as described more fully below. 2 Hewlett-Packard has produced more than 5000 pages of relevant, responsive documents. Hewlett-Packard's 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, Hewlett1

PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING AND MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING - 2
MS-07-0030 RSM

GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S

2200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 TELEPHONE (206) 256-6309 FACSIMILE (206) 256-6318

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-6

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 3 of 9

1 2 3 4

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 March 5 return date on some of the Subpoenas, which incidentally was that day. (See Ex. 2, Emails between V. Ho and C. Connor (Mar. 5-7, 2007).) Tatung claimed to

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

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. Nonetheless, Tatung evidently began filing its motions on March 9, 2007. All of the motions filed are nearly identical. Many of the motions were filed on an ex parte basis. With respect to the remaining motions, which were not technically filed ex parte, the motions were served in a questionable manner. For example, none of the 23 motions were sent to Shari Klevens at McKenna Long & Aldridge, even though Ms. Klevens was the attorney who issued and served all of the Subpoenas at issue (as evident from the face of the Subpoenas). Indeed, even though LPL's counsel sent an email on Friday, March 2, 2007 providing a service list for all documents in the Main Case, Tatung failed to serve motions on the complete list of attorneys included in that list. As a result, Tatung did not learn of many of

Packard's production reveals many "Process Management Plans," even after Tatung denied the existence of such documents and refused to produce them. Tatung's failure to produce documents adds support for LPL's position that it needs the discovery sought from the third parties.

PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING AND MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING - 3
MS-07-0030 RSM

GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S

2200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 TELEPHONE (206) 256-6309 FACSIMILE (206) 256-6318

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-6

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 4 of 9

1 2 3 4

the motions until well after they were filed. Moreover, Tatung served the majority of its motions by regular mail, even though Tatung requested expedited hearings with respect to those motions, ensuring the possibility that the courts would rule before LPL would receive the motions, let alone have an opportunity to respond. Notably, the facts suggest that Tatung actually went out of its way to make sure that LPL did not receive the motions in a timely

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

manner. For example, Tatung served only a few of the motions electronically, and then, even though Shari Klevens was the only attorney to sign LPL's subpoenas, served its motions only on two other LPL attorneys, one of whom Tatung knew to be out of the office defending depositions for the Main Case. Also, even though Tatung committed to LPL and the Special Master during a hearing on March 12, 2007 that it would provide electronic copies of all motions by the close of business on March 12, 2007, Tatung has so far failed to do so. See Ex. 3, Letter from C. Connor to Tatung's counsel on March 12, 2007, which advises Tatung of LPL's additional concerns. As a further example, according to Tatung, it filed a Motion for Protective Order with regard to the Subpoena served on Sensormatic in the Southern District of Florida on March 9, 2007. That motion was served by mail only and received by LPL in the mid-afternoon on Monday, March 12, 2007 (in the afternoon mail delivery). At 4:30 p.m. that same day, LPL received notice that the Southern District had granted the motion, and the court's order stated that the court reviewed an opposition filed by LPL (evidently using language from a standard proposed order).3 Ex. 4. Moreover, Tatung is now trying to capitalize on the Southern District of Florida's mistaken entry of an order in Tatung's favor by encouraging other courts, including this one, to grant Tatung's motions even as LPL is preparing its oppositions. See e.g., Ex. 5. As yet another example of Tatung's failure to provide adequate notice of its motions,
LPL has filed a Motion for Reconsideration in the Southern District of Florida, advising the Court that its order was issued before LPL had been given notice of Tatung's motion and before LPL had an opportunity to respond.
3

PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING AND MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING - 4
MS-07-0030 RSM

GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S

2200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 TELEPHONE (206) 256-6309 FACSIMILE (206) 256-6318

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-6

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 5 of 9

1 2 3 4

on March 12, 2007, Tatung sent a letter to Judge Mary L. Cooper in the District of New Jersey and forwarded a copy of Tatung's Motion for Protective Order filed in that court. Tatung copied two of LPL's attorneys on the letter electronically (although not Ms. Klevens), but did not attach the enclosures, even though LPL had not otherwise received those documents at that time. See Ex. 6. Moreover, even after LPL reiterated during a hearing in

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

the Main Case that Ms. Klevens and Cormac Connor, also of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, should be included on correspondence relating to the third party subpoenas, Tatung had continued to leave them off of new emails enclosing the requested motions. See Ex. 7. Finally, as further evidence of Tatung's conduct with respect to the Motions for Protective Order, not only did Tatung provide untimely and/or no notice of the motions, but Tatung failed to confer with LPL on possible times for the hearing and scheduled several overlapping hearings in multiple jurisdictions. For example, Defendants initially tried to schedule three oral arguments, all on the morning of March 15, 2007, in New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Illinois. These three motions, and many others, were scheduled only a few days after the motions were filed and served by regular U.S. mail, rather than electronically, if at all.4 While Tatung filed the Motions for Protective Order, it did so 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.5 However, because Tatung contacted the third parties to notify them of Tatung's Motions, several of the third parties have now refused to produce the requested discovery. See, e.g. Ex. 8.

As Tatung is aware, all of these emergency hearings have been scheduled to occur simultaneously with depositions of Tatung's witnesses. Because LPL's lead trial counsel are busy taking and defending depositions this week, it appears that Tatung strategically filed these requests for expedited hearing in an attempt to prevent LPL from obtaining significant and relevant information it needs from the third parties or to divert LPL's focus from the Tatung depositions. 5 For example, even after learning that Tatung had filed Motions related to the Subpoenas, a few of the third parties have agreed to produce the requested documents, further undermining Tatung's argument that the Subpoenas are burdensome.

4

PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING AND MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING - 5
MS-07-0030 RSM

GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S

2200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 TELEPHONE (206) 256-6309 FACSIMILE (206) 256-6318

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-6

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 6 of 9

1 2 3 4

II.

ARGUMENT A. Defendants' Request for Expedited Hearing Should Be Denied

Defendants argue that LPL has created the need for expedited hearing by serving its Subpoenas "at the last minute." This is simply not true.6 Indeed, LPL waited to serve its Subpoenas because, simply put, LPL was hopeful that it would receive the discovery at issue

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

from the Defendants. However, as the discovery deadline quickly approached and Defendants had not provided the requested information, LPL realized it had no choice but to serve the Subpoenas before LPL's opportunity to obtain the discovery was lost. Nonetheless, LPL served the Subpoenas a full six weeks before the deadline for third party discovery. Indeed, in a hearing on March 12, 2007, Tatung conceded that it has not produced all responsive discovery documents and that it would produce additional documents in April 2007, after the deadline for the close of third party discovery. Contrary to Tatung's suggestion, Tatung has created its own delay and now offers that delay as justification for its expedited relief. Indeed, even though Tatung received the Subpoenas on or about February 13 and 14, it waited more than three weeks to file the instant motion. Tatung's request for an expedited motion would be unnecessary but for Defendants' failure to file this motion when it learned of the scope of the Subpoenas. LPL should not have to pay for Tatung's delay.7 B. LPL Requests that Any Hearing On This Matter Be Scheduled At a Time When LPL'S Washington, D.C. Counsel Is Available and Requests Leave to Participate By Telephone

Because Tatung filed approximately 23 motions, all with requests for expedited hearing, the various courts have begun to schedule hearings at the same time. Tatung did not

6

While the Scheduling Order in the Main Case sets March 30, 2007 as the close of third party discovery, LPL has twice requested extensions of this deadline. Tatung opposed those requests, which were denied. 7 In addition, on Friday, March 16, 2007, Special Master Vincent Poppiti in the District of Delaware will consider whether to extend the deadline for third party discovery. If that motion is granted, the deposition can be rescheduled past March 30, 2007 and any alleged need for expedited resolution of this motion will be rendered moot. Also pending before Special Master Poppiti is LPL's request that Tatung be precluded from continuing their blatant interference with appropriate third party discovery.

PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING AND MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING - 6
MS-07-0030 RSM

GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S

2200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 TELEPHONE (206) 256-6309 FACSIMILE (206) 256-6318

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-6

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 7 of 9

1 2 3 4

consult with LPL regarding LPL's availability with respect to any of the 23 pending motions prior to its request for expedited hearing. Consequently, Tatung attempted to schedule at least three hearings (of which LPL knows), all on the morning of March 15, at 9:00 a.m. (in New Jersey), at 9:15 a.m. (in Illinois), and 11:00 a.m. (in Massachusetts). These hearings, which are just a few examples, are obviously being scheduled to create the most interference,

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

harassment, and burden on LPL's counsel. Because the various courts presumably are not aware of the other motions pending with respect to the 23 Subpoenas, the hearings being scheduled are at times when LPL is unavailable, primarily due to other hearings scheduled at the same time. As a result, LPL requests that any hearing on this matter be scheduled, or rescheduled to the extent already placed on the Court's docket, until a time when LPL's Washington, D.C. counsel is available. In addition, in light of the numerous hearings scheduled within hours of one another in different jurisdictions across the country, LPL requests that its Washington, D.C. counsel be permitted to participate in any hearings by telephone. If necessary, however, LPL will have local counsel present in person for the hearing. III. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, LPL requests that Tatung's motion for expedited hearing be denied, and that the Court schedule a hearing at a time when LPL's Washington, D.C. counsel is available. LPL also requests that its counsel be permitted to participate in the hearing by telephone.

PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING AND MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING - 7
MS-07-0030 RSM

GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S

2200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 TELEPHONE (206) 256-6309 FACSIMILE (206) 256-6318

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-6

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 8 of 9

1 2 3 4 5

DATED this 14th day of March 2007. GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC

By_/s/ Ronald C. Gardner _______________ Ronald C. Gardner, WSBA No. 9270 Of Counsel:

6
MCKENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE LLP

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING AND MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING - 8
MS-07-0030 RSM GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S

Shari Klevens 1900 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 202-496-7207 Attorneys for Plaintiff

2200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 TELEPHONE (206) 256-6309 FACSIMILE (206) 256-6318

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-6

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 9 of 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The undersigned certifies that on March 14, 2007, she electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send automatic notification of the filing to the following: PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING AND MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING

Stacy Foster Warmuth Wilsdon Calfo PLLC [email protected]

Dated: March 14, 2007. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED HEARING AND MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING - 9
MS-07-0030 RSM GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S

/s/ Jan M. Young Jan M. Young Legal Assistant to Ronald C. Gardner

2200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 TELEPHONE (206) 256-6309 FACSIMILE (206) 256-6318

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-7

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 1 of 15

EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-7

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 2 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-7

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 3 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-7

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 4 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-7

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 5 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-7

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 6 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-7

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 7 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-7

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 8 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-7

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 9 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-7

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 10 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-7

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 11 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-7

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 12 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-7

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 13 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-7

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 14 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-7

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 15 of 15

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-8

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 1 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-8

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 2 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-8

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 3 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-8

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 4 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-8

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 5 of 5

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-9

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-9

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-9

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 3 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-10

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 1 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-10

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 2 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-10

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 3 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-10

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 4 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-10

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 5 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-10

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 6 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-10

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 7 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-10

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 8 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-10

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 9 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-10

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 10 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-10

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 11 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-10

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 12 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-10

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 13 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-10

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 14 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-10

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 15 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-10

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 16 of 16

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-11

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 1 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-11

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 2 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-11

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 3 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-11

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 4 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-11

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 5 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-11

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 6 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-11

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 7 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-11

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 8 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-11

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 9 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-11

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 10 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-11

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 11 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-11

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 12 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-11

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 13 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-11

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 14 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-11

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 15 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-11

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 16 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-11

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 17 of 17

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-12

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-12

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 2 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-13

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-13

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-13

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 3 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-14

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-14

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-14

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 3 of 3

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-15

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 1 of 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 v. TATUNG COMPANY, TATUNG COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC., and VIEWSONIC CORPORATION, Defendant. L.G. PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD, Plaintiff,

The Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

No. MS 07-0030-RSM PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

Noted for Hearing March 19, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.

Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPL") hereby opposes the 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 Amazon.com, Inc. (See Ex. 1.) LPL requests

17 18 19 20 21 22 23

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, PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 1
- MS 07-0030-RSM GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S

2200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 TELEPHONE (206) 256-6309 FACSIMILE (206) 256-6318

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-15

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 2 of 14

1 2 3 4

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. 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 Corporation ("ViewSonic") (collectively, the "Defendants"). The Defendants manufacture

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

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.1 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

"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).

1

PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 2
- MS 07-0030-RSM

GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S

2200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 TELEPHONE (206) 256-6309 FACSIMILE (206) 256-6318

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-15

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 3 of 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

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 discovery concerning infringement, inducement, damages, and other issues.2 While a small handful of these third parties were served with subpoenas during the jurisdictional phase of this case, the new subpoenas are broader in several respects. First, the jurisdictional subpoenas did not seek documents related to ViewSonic, which are sought in the present Subpoenas. Second, the jurisdictional subpoenas were limited in most of their categories to sales of products in Delaware, rather than throughout the United States. In addition, the Subpoenas include three categories that did not appear at all in the jurisdictional subpoenas. See Ex. 1, paragraphs 1, 2, and 8 in Attachment B. Moreover, and perhaps most importantly, some of the parties that received both subpoenas produced very few, if any, documents in response to the jurisdictional subpoenas, and likely have additional responsive documents created since the first subpoena was served. 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. Thus, the third parties are likely to have documents pertaining to communications, business coordination efforts, contracts or other agreements between itself and the Defendants pertaining to Defendants' products and sales of those products in the United States. The employees of the third parties are likely to have knowledge of the manner in which the third party conducted business with the Defendants and their customers in the United States. The employees of the third parties are
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 below.
2

PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 3
- MS 07-0030-RSM

GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S

2200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 TELEPHONE (206) 256-6309 FACSIMILE (206) 256-6318

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-15

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 4 of 14

1 2 3 4

also likely to have knowledge of the methods and practices and any coordination efforts related to the third parties' acquisition of infringing LCD components from the Defendants. All of this information will assist LPL in evaluating its patent infringement and inducement claims against the Defendants and will enable LPL to verify whether the Defendants' own document productions and deposition testimony have been complete and accurate. See

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

generally MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc., v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp., 420 F.3d 1369, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (discussing factors evidencing inducement to infringe on patents). 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.3 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 between V. Ho and C. Connor (Mar. 5-7, 2007).) 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

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.

3

PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 4
- MS 07-0030-RSM

GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S

2200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 TELEPHONE (206) 256-6309 FACSIMILE (206) 256-6318

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-15

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 5 of 14

1 2 3 4

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

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

proved why any documents now in the custody of third parties are confidential, trade secrets, or otherwise shielded from discovery. See id. 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. 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 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, PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 5
- MS 07-0030-RSM GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S

2200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 TELEPHONE (206) 256-6309 FACSIMILE (206) 256-6318

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-15

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 6 of 14

1 2 3 4

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

5 6 7 8 9

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, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
4

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).4 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. In light of these issues, and the other related discovery issues currently pending in the Main Case as described below, a decision in this Court would have to be made in a vacuum, without the benefit of entering a global decision related to all 23 nearly identical motions. Indeed, this Court should not attempt to decide these issues in a vacuum without the benefit of knowing the history of

23

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.
GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S

PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 6
- MS 07-0030-RSM

2200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 TELEPHONE (206) 256-6309 FACSIMILE (206) 256-6318

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-15

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 7 of 14

1 2 3 4

complex discovery disputes and facts at issue between the parties in the Main case. Thus, for the reasons cited above, LPL requests that the Court formally transfer this dispute back to the District of Delaware, the 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

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

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); see 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). 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 are 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 PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 7
- MS 07-0030-RSM GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S

2200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 TELEPHONE (206) 256-6309 FACSIMILE (206) 256-6318

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-15

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 8 of 14

1 2 3 4

establishing that it is entitled to a Protective Order. Cipollone, 785 F.2d at 1121. Namely, Tatung has failed to explain why it would be burdensome to Tatung for a third party to produce the requested information. In addition, while Tatung argues that its alleged confidential documents are stored in a secure facility, Tatung fails to explain how it can assert the alleged confidentiality of such information that it has voluntarily disclosed to its

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

customers, particularly where Tatung evidently has no confidentiality agreement in place to protect the information. 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 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. Tatung's argument that LPL seeks such information "to obtain a competitive advantage over them" is unfounded, inappropriate, and frankly, would not even be possible since documents marked "Highly Sensitive Confidential" cannot even be disclosed to LPL and can only be seen by outside counsel. See Ex. 4 at ¶ 2.2. LPL strongly disputes Tatung's contention that it has ever violated a Protective Order in this or any other cases. Moreover, Tatung has no evidence to support its contention that LPL may be in violation of the patent prosecution bar, and Tatung's accusations on this point are misplaced and offensive. 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.

PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 8
- MS 07-0030-RSM

GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S

2200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 TELEPHONE (206) 256-6309 FACSIMILE (206) 256-6318

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-15

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 9 of 14

1 C. 2 3 4 5 Sensormatic, who had previously agreed to produce the documents requested in the 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Tatung's decision to wait almost one month to file its motions for protective order and 19 20 21 22 23 Tatung's disruptive communications with third parties are tactics that Tatung has used before in the Main Case and in at least one prior patent infringement case. In the Main Case, during the jurisdictional discovery phase, "Tatung failed to appear for depositions on multiple occasions, failed to produce witnesses prepared to testify on noticed and relevant topics, and failed to respond to interrogatories and requests for production of documents," which forced LPL to waste its resources just to prove that Tatung's products are sold in Delaware. (Ex. 5, PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 9
- MS 07-0030-RSM GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S

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

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.) 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. Because Tatung waited until now to file motions pertaining to subpoenas served almost one month ago, it is also clear that Tatung is using its motions as a way to prevent LPL from obtaining third party discovery prior to the March 30 deadline.

2200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 TELEPHONE (206) 256-6309 FACSIMILE (206) 256-6318

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-15

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 10 of 14

1 2 3 4

Report & Recomms. at 9 (Aug. 16, 2005) (imposing sanctions on Tatung).) Ultimately, after the Special Discovery Master in the Main Case reviewed Tatung's pattern of delay and discovery abuse, Tatung withdrew its jurisdictional defense. (See generally id.) 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

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

attached hereto). 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 9-10), and filing motions for protective orders for which Tatung lacked standing, (see id. at 10-11). As Tatung is aware, all of these emergency hearings have been scheduled to occur simultaneously with depositions of Tatung's witnesses. Because LPL's lead trial counsel are busy taking and defending depositions this week, it appears that Tatung strategically filed these requests for expedited hearing in an attempt to prevent LPL from obtaining significant and relevant information it needs from the third parties or to divert LPL's focus from the Tatung depositions. 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

23

compel in the Main Case that addressed issues common to all Defendants in the Main Case in PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 10
- MS 07-0030-RSM GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S

2200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 TELEPHONE (206) 256-6309 FACSIMILE (206) 256-6318

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-15

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 11 of 14

1 2 3 4

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

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

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 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. Although PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 11
- MS 07-0030-RSM GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S

2200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 TELEPHONE (206) 256-6309 FACSIMILE (206) 256-6318

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-15

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 12 of 14

1 2 3 4

Tatung resists LPL's discovery in the Main Case, that resistance does not, by itself, erect roadblocks to LPL's discovery from third parties. LPL properly seeks discovery from Tatung about all potentially infringing products because only Tatung can provide LPL with information that would identify infringing products out of Tatung's total of over 850 different products.

5 E. 6 7 8 9 However, because Tatung makes hundreds of products, most of which are sold under brand 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Specifically, objections based on burden or scope of a Subpoena should be made by the party 23 upon whom the Subpoena is served. As the burden will not be borne by Tatung, Tatung does PLAINTIFF L.G.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.'S OPPOSITION TO TATUNG'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER - 12
- MS 07-0030-RSM GARDNER BOND TRABOLSI PLLC
A T T O R N E Y S

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.

names belonging to third parties, LPL has no way to know, without Tatung's assistance, which of Tatung's hundreds of products use infringing technology. LPL's attempts to obtain information regarding Defendants' products has been ongoing since November 2005. However, the Defendants have objected to producing documents that would enable LPL to identify those products, and continue to resist LPL's efforts to this day. In fact, during a hearing on March 12, 2007, Tatung conceded that it has not produced all such documents and that it would produce additional documents in April 2007, after the deadline for the close of third party discovery. 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.

2200 SIXTH AVENUE, SUITE 600 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98121 TELEPHONE (206) 256-6309 FACSIMILE (206) 256-6318

Case 1:07-cv-00180-JJF

Document 9-15

Filed 03/26/2007

Page 13 of 14

1 2 3 4

not have standing to raise that issue. To the extent