Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:O7—cv-00049-JJF Document 17 Filed O4/19/2007 Page 1 of 2
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT 81 TUNNELL LLP
1201 Noivsru Mrxxxxrr STREET
P.O. Box 1347
WrLM1NcT0N, DELAWARE 19899-1347
302 658 9200
THOMAS C.G1u1vrM FAX
302 351 9595
302 4-25 4661 FAX
[email protected] 19,
BY E-FILING
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
United States District Court
for the District of Delaware
844 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: FCI USA, Inc. and F CI Americas Technology, Inc.
v. Molex Incorporated, C.A. No. 07-49- JJF
Dear Judge Faman:
I write on behalf of plaintiffs (collectively "FCI") in response to defendant
Molex’s letter today regarding the two disputed issues in the proposed scheduling order. It is our
understanding that the Court’s practice is not to accept letters containing substantive argrunent.
However, if the Court determines to consider Molex’s letter, this is FCI’s response.
First, with respect to the number of interrogatories, Molex’s request to double the
number of interrogatories allowed by the rules to 50 is unreasonable. The three patents in suit
are all related and asserted against the same accused product. As Molex itself argues, they all
"relate to Molex’s same allegedly infringing product," and all claims "are directed to an
electrical connector having a particular configuration of electrical contacts."1 There is no reason
for 50 interrogatories.
Second, with respect to depositions, Molex’s request for 140 hours of depositions
is burdensome and unjustified. The rules allow for ten. Since there are nine inventors, FCI has
agreed to expand the number to fifteen. Absent a specific reason, however, there is no reason to
double the number of depositions allowed by the rules to the equivalent of twenty. Nor, since
many of the inventor depositions will likely be overlapping and shorter, is there any reason to
I Defendant’s reply to Plaintiffs’ Opposition To Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss, Stay Or
Transfer, April 16, 2007 (D.I. 13), p. 14.

Case 1:O7—cv-00049-JJF Document 17 Filed O4/19/2007 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Joseph J. Faman, Jr.
April 19, 2007
Page 2
base the limit for depositions on the number of hours. This will simply allow Molex, by taking
some shorter depositions, to try to depose even more than 20 witnesses. While this case involves
technical subject matter, it does not involve that many different issues, and there should be no
need to burden that many additional witnesses.
FCI submits that the number of interrogatories should be limited t0 25 in
accordance with the rules, and the number of fact depositions should be limited to 15.
Respectfully,
Thomas C. Grimm (#1098)
TCG
cc: Dr. Peter T. Dalleo, Clerk (by hand)
Adam W. Poff, Esquire (by e-tiling & e-mail)
John W. Kozak, Esquire (by e-mail)
Albert J. Breneisen, Esquire (by e-mail)