Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :O7—cv—OOO49-JJF Document 16 Filed O4/19/2007 Page 1 of 2
Yourro CoNAwAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
Tr-rE Bmr1¤YrvrNE Burromo
1000 WEST STREET, 17T1~r Frooa
JOSYW-INGER$OLL(N0·1088) wrrMrNcroN,nErArvm; mgm (202)s71-6600
DIRECT DTAL: 302·571—6672 (302) 571-1253 mx
DIRECT FAM: $02-5766301 1>.o. sox 391 (2001252-2234 (DE ONLY)
j11’1g€1”[email protected] \A/ILMINGTON, DELA\VAR_E ]9899-()39] WWW.yOuTtgCOUH\\'3y.COm
April 19, 2007
Bv CM/ECF
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
United States District Court
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: F C] USA, Inc., etal. v. Molex Incorporated,
Civil Action No. 07-049-JJP
Dear Judge Farnan:
I write on behalf of defendant ("Molex"), regarding the only disputed portion of
the proposed Scheduling Order submitted to the Court in this case. The parties are in agreement
with respect to all aspects of the Scheduling Order, with the exception of the maximum number
of interrogatories and the maximum number of depositions. Molex has urged the Court to allow
a maximum of 50 interrogatories including contention interrogatories and 140 hours of
depositions, excluding expert depositions, whereas Plaintiffs propose only 25 interrogatories and
15 depositions, excluding expert depositions.
Molex believes that additional interrogatories are necessary because of tlre
number of patents—in-suit, the complexity of the subject matter, and the large number of
inventors named on the patents—in-suit. Similarly, Molex believes that with nine named
inventors, prior art witnesses, and other yet to be identified witnesses, the 15 depositions
proposed by Plaintiffs will be insufficient. Molex’s proposal of 140 hours is more realistic,
because while some depositions, for example 30(b)(6) depositions or depositions of the first
named inventor, may take over 7 hours, other depositions may take considerably less than 7
hours. Accordingly, 140 hours of deposition time would allow depositions to be carried out with
flexibility and without undue burden to the witnesses or parties.
DB02:59l9l59.l 0494s9.1002

Case 1 :O7—cv—OOO49-JJF Document 16 Filed O4/19/2007 Page 2 of 2
YouNe CoNAwAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
April 19, 2007
Page 2
We look forward to discussing this issue with the Court at tomorrow’s scheduling
conference.
Respectfully submitted,
Cé/`,¢\;/é.}
J . Ingers (No. 1088)
JWl:cg
cc: Clerk of the Court (by CM/ECF and hand delivery)
Thomas C. Grimm, Esquire (by CM/ECE and hand delivery)
Albert J. Breneisen, Esquire (by e—mail)
J olm W. Kozak, Esquire (by e·mail)
DBO2:59l9l59.1 0494g9_i0()g