Free Memorandum Opinion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF Document 104 Filed 12/20/2007 Page 1 of Q p
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., ;
Plaintiff, ;
v. ; Civil Action No. 06—7S8—JJF
FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC., i
Defendant. E
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Plaintiff, Promos Technologies, Inc., noticed a Rule
30(b)(6) deposition to depose Defendant, Freescale Semiconductor,
Inc.'s, designee on topics related to the accused products.
After some strained negotiations over topics and location, a
videotape deposition was held on Friday, November 30, 2007 in
Wilmington, Delaware (“the November 30th deposition"). Defendant
produced an employee, Michael Dean Snyder (“Mr. Snyder”), as its
designee in response to Plaintiff’s notice.
Pursuant to the Court’s discovery dispute procedure,
Plaintiff has requested the Court to compel Defendant to re-
produce Mr. Snyder and require him to respond to questions
Plaintiff attempted at the November 30th deposition. Defendant
opposes Plaintiff’s application, contending the assertion of a
work product privilege was appropriate.1 Further, Defendant
1Defendant has cited Sporck v. Piel, 759 F.2d 312, 316 (Bd
Cir. 1985), as support for counsel's work product privilege
assertion. The Sporck case facts are clearly distinguishable
from the facts here, specifically with regard to the questions

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF Document 104 Filed 12/20/2007 Page 2 of 3
argues that it has provided Plaintiff with all the technical
information Plaintiff is entitled to in the context of
Plaintiff’s infringement claims. Defendant contends Plaintiff
should be focused only on the core of the accused products in
seeking infringement discovery. The Court held a hearing on
Thursday, December 13, 2007 (“the December 13th hearing"), and
heard the arguments of counsel. Subsequent to the hearing, the
Court reviewed the transcript and videotape of the November 30th
deposition.
After reading the November 30th deposition transcript and
viewing the videotape, the Court finds that Defendant’s counsel
obstructed the questioning of Mr. Synder by the improper
assertion of work product privilege and interposing numerous
objections unsupported by the rules of evidence. The Court need
not list the errors of Defendant’s counsel to demonstrate the
conduct of counsel, because the inappropriateness of the
objections is plain from a reading of the deposition transcript.2
For the reasons detailed above, the Court will order the
following relief for Plaintiff: {1) all costs and attorneys’ fees
for the November 30th deposition and the re—deposition will be
paid by Defendant’s counsel; (2) a second deposition of Mr.
asked, information sought and the fact that the deponent was a
30(b)(6) witness, not a party.
2For example, see pages 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, and 25.
1

Case 1:06-cv-00788-JJF Document 104 Filed 12/20/2007 Page 3 of 3
Snyder will be held at a time and place designated by Plaintiff.
This second deposition will not be charged to Plaintiff’s
allocation of depositions; (3) the topics of the second
deposition will be as noticed and explained by Plaintiff at the
November 30 deposition. In ordering the relief provided in item
3 above, the Court accepts the assertions made by Plaintiff at
the December 13th hearing and the testimony of Mr. Snyder at the
November 30th deposition. (Tr. p. 29).
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. All costs and attorneys’ fees for the November 30, 2007
deposition of Mr. Snyder, and the re—deposition shall
be paid by Defendant’s counsel.
2. A second 30(b)(6) deposition of Mr. Snyder shall be
held at a time and place designated by Plaintiff. This
second deposition will not be charged to Plaintiff.
3. The topics of the second deposition shall be as noticed
and explained by Plaintiff at the November 30, 2007
deposition and the December 13, 2007 hearing.
Decembergq 2007 ‘ ·£2¥Ji)_@¤A¤as
DATE Uwiffsn rms nisraidé gaunea