Document 424
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 2 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 4 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 5 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 6 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 7 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 8 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 9 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 10 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 11 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 12 of 12
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-2
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF I
840 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-6324 TELEPHONE (949) 760-0991 FACSIMILE (949) 760-5200
Document 424-2
Filed 09/04/2008
LLP
Page 2 of 2
RELL
& MANELLA
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
18 0 0 AV E N U E O F T H E S TA R S , S U I T E 9 0 0
TELEPHONE (310) 277-1010
FACSIMILE (310) 203-7199 WEBSITE: www.irell.com
L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 - 4 276
WRITER'S DIRECT
TELEPHONE (310) 203-7956 FACSIMILE (310) 203-7199
[email protected]
July 7, 2008
VIA E-MAIL Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1900 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 [email protected] Re: Dear Lora: I write in response to your letter of June 24, 2008. CMO accepts LGD's proposal to narrow Document Request No. 38 as stated in your letter. In accordance with LGD's request and proposal, CMO hereby withdraws from its production the documents produced at CMD0021576CMD0278017. CMO will produce documents responsive to Document Request No. 38 as narrowed by your June 24 letter, subject to its objections, except that CMO hereby withdraws its objection that Document Request No. 38 is overbroad and unduly burdensome. I will not address your other comments about the nature of the original document production, except to note that your assumptions and assertions are not correct, and that the accusations based thereon are likewise incorrect and counter-productive to promoting the civil conduct of this litigation to which CMO believes the parties should aspire. Very truly yours, LG Display Co, Ltd. v. Chi Mei Optoelectronic Corp., CV No. 06-726 (D. Del.)
Thomas C. Werner cc: Christian Platt ([email protected]) Brian Range, Esq. ([email protected])
1890494
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-3
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-3
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 2 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-3
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-4
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF I
840 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-6324 TELEPHONE (949) 760-0991 FACSIMILE (949) 760-5200
Document 424-4
Filed 09/04/2008
LLP
Page 2 of 3
RELL
& MANELLA
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
18 0 0 AV E N U E O F T H E S TA R S , S U I T E 9 0 0
TELEPHONE (310) 277-1010
FACSIMILE (310) 203-7199 WEBSITE: www.irell.com
L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 - 4 276
WRITER'S DIRECT
TELEPHONE (310) 203-7956 FACSIMILE (310) 203-7199
[email protected]
July 12, 2008 VIA E-MAIL
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1900 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 [email protected] Re: Dear Lora: I write regarding your recent letters relating to CMO's attempt to facilitate a discussion among the parties of their outstanding discovery issues, and LGD's refusal to do so. Of the eight pages of letters LGD sent over July 8 and 9, only briefly at the end of one of those letters does LGD actually respond to CMO's request to explain LGD's discovery deficiencies. Even then, you continue to question your obligation to produce highly relevant documents from other litigations involving the LGD patents in suit. At the same time, as you confirmed in your July 9 letter, LGD is intentionally delaying its response to my June 30 letter regarding LGD's deficient responses to CMO's Interrogatories. We are by now well familiar with LGD's tactics of demanding that CMO meet and confer regarding LGD's issues while refusing to meet and confer regarding CMO's issues, claiming those issues are not "ripe" for discussion simply because LGD has chosen not to timely address them. To reiterate CMO's position, we continue to believe that the parties need to meet and confer regarding all outstanding discovery issues, and that LGD's persistent refusal to even indicate when LGD will be prepared discuss CMO's issues is improper. We ask once again that LGD advise when that global meet and confer will occur. Should LGD decide to finally come to the table next week, please note that I will be in Hawai'i, which is six hours earlier than Washington. I understand you find it "unreasonable" to meet and confer after 4:00 p.m. EDT, which leaves us with a very small window of opportunity. I ask that you take that into consideration in proposing times to conference. I would like to address one of the more problematic issues raised in your letters, regarding LGD's desire for detailed discovery into sales of products regardless of whether or not those products are made, used, sold, offered for sale or imported into the United States, and regardless of whether or not those customers have any connection to the United States. LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp., CV No. 06-726 (D. Del.)
1896858
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF IRELL & MANELLA
LLP
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Document 424-4
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 3
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. July 12, 2008 Page 2
You contend that LGD has explained why it is entitled to such discovery. That is not the case. As requested in my June 30 letter, and which we have yet to receive, please identify any caselaw that you contend supports LGD's position. Our understanding of the severalpage excerpt of the hearing transcript you provided--which far from reveals the entire circumstances of or issues involved in that case--does not support LGD's request for detailed information regarding every sale of any CMO product around the world. We further note that, during that hearing, counsel for LGD conceded that only a fraction of the discovery you seek could even possibly lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. See Ex. 1 to your July 9, 2008 letter, Hearing Transcript at 29:1318 (stating that only one-third of LCD sales are to the United States, whether directly or indirectly through some "intermediary"). We again request citation to the legal authority supporting LGD's demands. Finally, your July 8 letter confirms that LGD has (without explanation or reason) failed to produce documents of the most basic nature, such as assignment documents related to the '737 patent. On a similar note, we have reviewed LGD's production, and find that LGD has failed to produce virtually any service manuals for its products. These manuals are relevant to determining, among other things, which parts LGD uses in its products, how those parts are assembled, and what part numbers and supplier numbers correspond to each product. According to our list of accused LGD products, and based upon our review of LGD's production to date, LGD has failed to produce service manuals for at least 112 of those accused products. Please advise when we will receive this delinquent production. We look forward to discussing these and the other issues raised in the parties' correspondence once LGD finally agrees to come to the table. Thank you. Very truly yours,
Thomas C. Werner Enclosures cc: Christian Platt, Esq. ([email protected]) Brian Range, Esq. ([email protected])
1896858
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-5
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 7
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF I
840 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-6324 TELEPHONE (949) 760-0991 FACSIMILE (949) 760-5200
Document 424-5
Filed 09/04/2008
LLP
Page 2 of 7
RELL
& MANELLA
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
18 0 0 AV E N U E O F T H E S TA R S , S U I T E 9 0 0
TELEPHONE (310) 277-1010
FACSIMILE (310) 203-7199 WEBSITE: www.irell.com
L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 - 4 276
WRITER'S DIRECT
TELEPHONE (310) 203-7956 FACSIMILE (310) 203-7199
[email protected]
July 23, 2008
VIA E-MAIL
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1900 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 [email protected] Re: Dear Lora: I write regarding serious deficiencies in LGD's July 15, 18, 21, and 22, 2008 document productions. Where the parties have not already reached an unfortunate impasse, we request an immediate response so that we may determine which other of these issues need to be brought to the Court for resolution. LGD's Failure to Produce any Documents from Prior Litigations Involving LGD's Patents. For well over a month now, CMO has repeatedly requested the production of documents responsive to CMO's Document Request No. 98, which seeks documents from LGD's other litigations alleging infringement of the patents-in-suit. Based on our review to date, we find no such documents in LGD's production. On that basis, and given that the deadline for document production has passed, CMO has no choice but to move to compel LGD to produce these highly relevant documents. If LGD has in fact produced responsive documents, please immediately inform us so that we can determine whether or not to proceed with our motion. We had always hoped to avoid motion practice on this issue, and have patiently waited for LGD's compliance, but the prejudice CMO has suffered due to LGD's failure to produce any responsive documents at all has become too great. LGD's Refusal to Produce Emails. A week before the document production deadline, LGD attempted to unilaterally modify the stipulated deadline for the production of documents to exclude emails. As CMO made clear, LGD's actions were improper, and LGD has violated its obligations under the stipulated order. The parties served requests for production that sought, inter alia, email documents. CMO collected responsive email
1901325
LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp., CV No. 06-726 (D. Del.)
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF IRELL & MANELLA
LLP
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Document 424-5
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 7
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. July 23, 2008 Page 2
documents, was prepared to produce them on the 18th, and stands ready to produce them now. In light of LGD's refusal, however, and to avoid still further prejudice to CMO, CMO withheld email documents from its July 18 production. Please confirm that LGD will immediately produce the email documents it claims to have collected for production. Once we receive that confirmation, CMO will produce email documents as well. Should LGD refuse, CMO will move to compel LGD to produce email documents. LGD's Refusal to Produce Electronically Stored Information in Searchable Form in Contravention of Rule 34. Despite that the majority of LGD's production reflects documents that LGD appears to ordinarily maintain as electronically stored information in searchable form, LGD improperly removed the searchable text from its documents prior to production. As you confirmed LGD is aware in Cass Christenson's July 11 letter, LGD's conduct is inconsistent with Rule 34. LGD's claims that the parties agreed to the contrary is incorrect, as reflected in the correspondence to which you refer. Please immediately provide the searchable text associated with the electronically stored information that LGD produced. The particular means by which the parties provide searchable text is irrelevant; the parties may provide search functionality in any of the ways described in Cass Christenson's July 18 email. CMO provided searchable text for its production of electronically stored information by producing documents in native form. Please confirm that LGD will not use that searchable text until LGD produces the same in kind. To avoid further prejudice to CMO, please do not delay any longer providing searchable text for the electronically stored information that LGD produced. LGD's Failure to Produce Documents in Reasonably Usable Form: Beyond GDS and similar files, LGD made its entire production in TIF form. As CMO previously made clear, other forms of production may be more appropriate or indeed necessary under certain circumstances. In particular, production in TIF form of Excel spreadsheets, executable files such as source code, and engineering drawings, for example, is problematic. The volume of electronically stored information that LGD produced in TIF form makes this problem acute. LGD produced a substantial number of what appear to be Excel files in TIF form, which rendered them illegible because, e.g., the text is too small, the contents of the "cells" within such spreadsheets are hidden from view, or the document as a whole is rendered unusable because it is exploded into hundreds or even thousands of pages. See, e.g., LGD00182382; LGD00193213; LGD00193215; LGD00193217; LGD00193219; LGD00193221; LGD00193223; LGD00193225; LGD00193227; LGD00193228; LGD00193246; LGD00193248; LGD00193250; LGD00193252; LGD00193254; LGD00193256; LGD00193258; LGD00193260; LGD00193262; LGD00193264; LGD00193266; LGD00193268; LGD00193270; LGD00193290; LGD00193291; LGD00193303; LGD00219629; LGD00220604; LGD00222387; LGD00224747; LGD00224765; LGD00224770; LGD00224776; LGD00224777; LGD00224786; LGD00224795; LGD00224818; LGD00224820; LGD00224821; LGD00224824;
1901325
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF IRELL & MANELLA
LLP
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Document 424-5
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 4 of 7
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. July 23, 2008 Page 3
LGD00224825; LGD00224826; LGD00224827; LGD00224828; LGD00224829; LGD00224830; LGD00224831; LGD00224832; LGD00224834; LGD00224839; LGD00224843; LGD00224844; LGD00224846; LGD00224848; LGD00224849; LGD00224850; LGD00224851; LGD00224852; LGD00224854; LGD00224855; LGD00224879; LGD00224880; LGD00224881; LGD00224896; LGD00224897; LGD00224898; LGD00224899; LGD00224918; LGD00225036; LGD00225037; LGD00225038; LGD00225045; LGD00225047; LGD00225051; LGD00225052; LGD00225178; LGD00225888; LGD00225889; LGD00225890; LGD00225891; LGD00225892; LGD00225893; LGD00225980; LGD00225981; LGD00226007; LGD00226008; LGD00226009; LGD00226010; LGD00226015; LGD00226016; LGD00226017; LGD00226018; LGD00226019; LGD00226030; LGD00226032; LGD00226033; LGD00229267; LGD00229316; LGD00229317; LGD00229323; LGD00229326; LGD00229329; LGD00229333; LGD00229337; LGD00229341; LGD00229345; LGD00229347; LGD00229349; LGD00229351; LGD00229353; LGD00229354; LGD00229355; LGD00229357; LGD00229359; LGD00229361; LGD00229363; LGD00229365; LGD00229541; LGD00229544; LGD00229547; LGD00229549; LGD00229561; LGD00229563; LGD00229565; LGD00229567; LGD00230786; LGD00230796; LGD00230806; LGD00230817; LGD01992840 (one 270 page document); (LGD02009520 (one 10,674 page document); LGD02020194 (one 7,758 page document); LGD02027952 (one 2,546 page document); LGD02030498 (one 499 page document). According to Rule 34, even where a producing party objects to a particular form of production, that party must still produce electronically stored information either in reasonably usable form or the form in which it is ordinarily maintained. LGD does not maintain Excel files in TIF form. As noted above, LGD removed the searchable functionality from these documents by producing them in TIF form. While that alone renders them not reasonably usable, that is not the only functionality that LGD removed, given that data stored in Excel files and similar documents is manipulable--all sorting, scrolling, querying, filtering, compiling, and similar functionality has been disabled by LGD's choice of production form. LGD therefore failed to produce Excel files in reasonably usable form. In light of LGD's failure to produce these documents either in reasonably usable form or in the form in which they are ordinarily maintained, LGD has failed to satisfy its obligations under Rule 34. To remedy this deficiency, LGD must re-produce all Excel and similar files (i.e., all spreadsheet and database files, e.g., Access databases, including all delimited files that are best suited for viewing in spreadsheet or database applications, e.g., CSV files) in native form--the form in which they are ordinarily maintained, and the only form in which they are reasonably usable. The same issues and problems exist with respect to other categories of documents produced by LGD in TIF form. LGD produced as TIF numerous engineering drawings, which CMO is unable to use with the CAD software with which those files were designed to
1901325
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF IRELL & MANELLA
LLP
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Document 424-5
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 5 of 7
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. July 23, 2008 Page 4
be viewed. See, e.g., LGD00182657; LGD00182658; LGD00182659; LGD00182660; LGD00182661; LGD00182662; LGD00182663; LGD00182664; LGD00182665; LGD00182666; LGD00182667; LGD00182668; LGD00182669; LGD00182670; LGD00182671; LGD00182672; LGD00182673; LGD00182674; LGD00182675; LGD00182676; LGD00182677; LGD00182678; LGD00182679; LGD00182680; LGD00229268; LGD00229269; LGD00229270; LGD00229271; LGD00229272; LGD00229273; LGD00229274; LGD00229275; LGD00229276; LGD00229277; LGD00229278; LGD00229279; LGD00229280; LGD01993110LGD01993849 (740 drawings files). CMO is unable to manipulate these files as is possible only by using their native applications, which CMO cannot do because of the form in which LGD produced them. These files are therefore not reasonably usable, and since they were not produced in the form in which they are ordinarily maintained, LGD has again failed to satisfy the requirements of Rule 34. LGD must produce these documents natively. LGD further produced thousands of source code documents--amounting to several hundred thousands pages--in TIF form. Such executable files, which have essentially been printed out to hundreds of thousands of pages, were thereby rendered unusable by LGD's production form decision because CMO is unable to search, compile, or otherwise manipulate them as can only be done with the native versions of those documents. See most if not all of the documents produced at LGD00289392522344; LGD00569187701043; LGD020341832055063. The result is hundreds of thousands of pages of indecipherable text. Again, LGD has failed to produce these documents either in reasonably usable form or in the in which they are ordinarily maintained, and must therefore produce them in native form. Similarly, LGD produced tens of thousands of pages of what appear to be bills of materials ("BOMs") documents, which appear to contain information regarding the components of LGD's products. See LGD12852201991121, over 350 documents representing over 700,000 pages of LGD's production. However, rather than producing its BOMs in a comprehensible form, LGD produced TIFs of what amounts to printouts of the markup language source code. CMO is unable to parse that source code to make the documents intelligible. Instead, CMO would have to wade through each page of source code and individually isolate each piece of substantive information from among the nonsubstantive code, and reconstruct it into a comprehensible document. One BOM document alone (LGD1787087) is 6,169 pages, and there are hundreds of. These documents are therefore not reasonably usable. LGD does not ordinarily maintain these documents in TIF form, and has therefore failed to satisfy Rule 34 by producing them as TIFs. LGD must produce these documents natively. To be clear, the onus is not on CMO to review LGD's production and identify problematic production form decisions on a document-by-document basis. Even were LGD to address all of the specific documents cited in this letter, the problems caused by LGD's
1901325
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF IRELL & MANELLA
LLP
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Document 424-5
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 6 of 7
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. July 23, 2008 Page 5
production form decisions will remain, and LGD has an affirmative duty to remedy them without a specific request from CMO. Should LGD refuse to comply with its discovery obligations by producing all of its documents in reasonably usable form or in the in which they are ordinarily maintained, CMO will have no choice to move to compel LGD to do so. We sincerely hope to avoid that outcome. LGD's Failure to Produce Documents According to Common Litigation Support Standards. The technical specification of LGD's TIF production varies (e.g., some multipage TIFs and some single-page TIFs, some Group IV TIFs and some JPEG compression TIFs). CMO has been able to work around these variances. However, CMO must object to LGD's production at LGD231977266737 of nearly 40,000 single-page TIF images that appear to comprise multi-page documents, but for which LGD failed to provide any unitization information. CMO therefore has no idea which individual pages represent a given document. Based on our review, it is not even clear that LGD produced these documents in any order whatsoever. Please re-produce LGD00231977266737 in order, and with document breaks. Further, in some instances LGD produced 300 dpi TIF images--as is the litigation support industry's standard practice--but in other instances, LGD produced TIF images at only 200 dpi resolution. Documents produced at 200 dpi are difficult to read in electronic form--even using advanced zooming features, which would make for cumbersome review that is equivalent to having to read each page with a magnifying glass--and are completely illegible when printed. Please immediately re-produce all TIF images in LGD's production at 300 dpi (to the extent LGD is not required to instead produce those documents natively, as discussed above). Alternatively, LGD can produce the underlying documents natively. Improper Conditions on LGD's Document Productions. In its July 15, 18, 21, and 22, 2008 letters, LGD asserts, inter alia, that CMO is subject to an Order regarding a dispute to which CMO was not a party. To be clear, the protections afforded CMO's and LGD's document productions are spelled out in the Interim Protective Order and our correspondence confirming our agreement to abide by its terms, notwithstanding LGD's contentions to the contrary. LGD's Failure to Bates Number its Native Productions. LGD has now twice failed to produce native documents with any Bates numbers directly associated with those productions. None of LGD's LGDN production bears any Bates numbers. CMO attempted to obtain Bates number information from LGD in the past, and would have applied it ourselves, but LGD refused even to provide the information CMO requested. In light of LGD's refusals and unreasonable stance, CMO will simply refer to LGD's production of native documents by the only identification information that LGD provided associated directly with those documents: their filenames. LGD must do the same.
1901325
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF IRELL & MANELLA
LLP
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Document 424-5
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 7 of 7
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. July 23, 2008 Page 6
CMO reserves its rights regarding all other aspects of LGD's document production, including its size, scope, responsiveness, comprehensiveness, and timing. Very truly yours,
Thomas C. Werner cc: Christian Platt, Esq. ([email protected]) Brian Range, Esq. ([email protected])
1901325
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-6
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-6
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 2 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-6
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-7
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF I
840 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-6324 TELEPHONE (949) 760-0991 FACSIMILE (949) 760-5200
Document 424-7
Filed 09/04/2008
LLP
Page 2 of 5
RELL
& MANELLA
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
18 0 0 AV E N U E O F T H E S TA R S , S U I T E 9 0 0
TELEPHONE (310) 277-1010
FACSIMILE (310) 203-7199 WEBSITE: www.irell.com
L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 - 4 276
WRITER'S DIRECT
TELEPHONE (310) 203-7956 FACSIMILE (310) 203-7199
[email protected]
August 29, 2008
VIA E-MAIL
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1900 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 [email protected] Re: Dear Lora: I write to follow up on my letters of July 12, 2008, and August 12, 2008, regarding LGD's failure to produce technical documentation for the LGD products that CMO has accused of infringement. We have previously documented that LGD provided CMO no service manuals for 53 of those products, which prevents CMO from identifying the components with accused instrumentalities in each of the products. Where LGD did provide service manuals, we have reviewed the manuals in an attempt to identify these components, but we have been unable to locate many of their corresponding specification documents. For example, CMO has diligently searched LGD's production for information relating to the timing controller used in each accused LGD product. The service manuals for the following models did not identify the timing controller: LM201WE3, LP133WX1, LM201WE3, LC370WX1, and LC370WX1. Please advise how CMO may determine what timing controllers are used in these products. Where CMO was able to identify the timing controllers used in the accused LGD products, CMO has been unable to locate specification documents for many timing controllers, as shown below:
Manufacturer (Mfg) DAWIN TECH DAWIN TECH DAWIN TECH DAWIN TECH/SAMSUNG Mfg. Part No. DTML011 DTML012 DTML014 S4L9271X0150A/DTML008 LGD Part. No. 0IDAL-0009B 0IDAL-0010A 0IDAL-0012A 0IDAL-0006A
LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp., CV No. 06-726 (D. Del.)
1916139
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF IRELL & MANELLA
LLP
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Document 424-7
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 5
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. August 29, 2008 Page 2
HITACHI HITACHI HITACHI HYUNDAI SAMSUNG SILICON IMAGE SILICON IMAGE SILICON IMAGE SILICON IMAGE SILICON_WORKS MICROSYSTEMS SILICON_WORKS MICROSYSTEMS SILICON_WORKS MICROSYSTEMS SILICON_WORKS MICROSYSTEMS SILICON_WORKS MICROSYSTEMS SILICON_WORKS MICROSYSTEMS SILICON_WORKS MICROSYSTEMS SILICON_WORKS MICROSYSTEMS SILICON_WORKS MICROSYSTEMS SILICON_WORKS MICROSYSTEMS SILICON_WORKS MICROSYSTEMS SILICON_WORKS MICROSYSTEMS TEXAS INSTRUMENT THINE MICROSYSTEMS THINE MICROSYSTEMS THINE MICROSYSTEMS THINE MICROSYSTEMS THINE MICROSYSTEMS THINE MICROSYSTEMS THINE MICROSYSTEMS THINE MICROSYSTEMS TLI TLI TLI TLI TLI TLI DAWIN TECH
R8A00014CFP R8A01022FT R8A01028AFP HS353125B S4L9294X01-50A SII1169CTU SII1257LCMG208 SII1261CMHU SII1261CMHU SW0610_M SW0604_M SW0613_M SW0610A_M SW0615_M SW0602_U SW0611A_M SW0611_M SW0612B_M SW0602_U SW0604_M SW0604_M TFP7521 KZ4E053G23CFP KE5M3U2109 KZ4E010G21CFP KE5M5U2518 KZ4E064R11 KE5M3U1995CFP KE5M5U2455CFP KZ5M4U2207CFP TL2298ML TL2292ML TL2249ML TL2245ML_REV TL2322ML TL2242ML DTML015
0IHIL-0063D 0IHIL-0062A 0IHIL-0068B 0IHYL-0016B 0IDAL-0008A 0ISIL-0009A 0ISIL-0007A 0ISIL-0008A 0ISIL-0008B 0ISWL-0011B 0ISWL-0008A 0ISWL-0013A 0ISWL-0011C 0ISWL-0015A 0ISWL-0004A 0ISWL-0008C 0ISWL-0008B 0ISWL-0012C 0 SWL-0004A 0ISW-0008A ISWL-0008A 0ITIL-0050A 0ITHL-0015A 0ITHL-0016A 0ITHL-0007A 0ITHL-0020A 0ITHL-0004A 0ITHL-0012A 0ITHL-0019A 0ITHL-0017A 0ITLL-0018C 0ITLL-0018B 0ITLL-0010A 0ITLL-0008B 0ITLL-0028A 0ITLL-0007A 0IDAL-0013A
If LGD has produced specifications for these timing controllers, we are unable to locate them despite our diligent efforts. Please advise where in LGD's production specifications for the timing controllers listed above are located. Moreover, the specifications that CMO has been able locate do not reveal the necessary details regarding the processing of the gray scale data received by the timing
1916139
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF IRELL & MANELLA
LLP
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Document 424-7
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 4 of 5
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. August 29, 2008 Page 3
controller. This information is critical to CMO's infringement case. LGD's failure to provide that information is therefore prejudicing CMO's ability to build its case. In addition, we are still awaiting the further information you promised to provide on August 14, 2008, regarding LGD's production of BOMs. We have reviewed the BOM documents cited in LGD's responses to CMO's interrogatories. All three of those documents, which we believe originated as ESI, were produced as TIF images in an illegible and not reasonably usable manner, and must therefore be produced natively. We have attempted to OCR LGD00182382 and LGD00182588, but that process fails because of the extremely small size of the text. The result is that CMO is reduced to reviewing each page with the electronic equivalent of a magnifying glass. The original ESI would require no such mechanism. Similarly, LGD opted to TIF LGD01992840 in a manner that completely dislocates and scatters closely related information from the original native file to many different places throughout the TIF document, rendering that document not reasonably usable. LGD's production of these documents thereby fundamentally altered the original ESI underlying these documents as a result of its production form decision, and has deprived CMO of a reasonably usable copy of these documents. Please confirm that LGD will immediately produce native copies of LGD00182382, LGD00182588, and LGD01992840. Despite their poorly chosen production form, CMO believes (based on the limited review that we have been able to conduct)1 that the substance of those documents indicates that LGD is only selectively providing information regarding the components contained in its products while improperly withholding other information. LGD01992840 and LGD00182588 appear limited in scope to timing controllers, though we believe they reflect data exported from larger databases that contain information regarding other components. Please confirm whether such other databases exist, indicate whether or not they contain information regarding the components that reflect the instrumentalities CMO has accused of infringement (including components related to the backlight, polarizer, and LCD panel control circuitry), and confirm that LGD has produced or will produce any such data. Similarly, LGD00182382 contains many fields that reflect coded numeric information, but CMO has no means for deciphering that code. Please explain what the headings of each field reflected in LGD00182382 means, and how CMO may decipher the numeric data reflected in that document. CMO is still in the process of reviewing discovery provided by LGD regarding other components that reflect the instrumentalities CMO has accused of infringement. LGD's failure to provide discovery into the databases from which the information contained in LGD00182382, LGD00182588, and LGD01992840 is derived prejudices CMO's ability to build its case. CMO reserves its rights, including the right to recover the additional costs
LGD is required to produce not merely legible documents, but reasonably usable documents, or alternatively, documents in the form in which they are ordinarily maintained.
1916139
1
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF IRELL & MANELLA
LLP
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Document 424-7
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 5 of 5
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. August 29, 2008 Page 4
CMO has incurred attempting to make use of the documents that LGD has produced in a form that is not reasonably usable. Very truly yours,
Thomas C. Werner cc: Christian Platt, Esq. ([email protected]) Brian Range, Esq. ([email protected])
1916139
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-8
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-8
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 2 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-8
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-8
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 4 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-8
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 5 of 5
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-9
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-9
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 2 of 4
From: Christenson, Cass [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, July 18, 2008 12:59 PM To: Werner, Tom Cc: #CMO/LPL [Int]; Giza, Alexander; Hoffman, Adam; Kagan, Jonathan; ~Tyler, M. Craig; ~Holloway, Julie; ~Range, Brian; ~Yip, Vincent; ~Garnett, Terry; ~Wied, Peter; ~Murray, Katherine; ~Shaw, John; ~Pascale, Karen; ~Chiu, Jay; [email protected]; ~Platt, Christian; ~Bono, Gaspare; ~Brzezynski, Lora; ~Goodwyn, Tyler; ~Kirk, Richard; ~Lomas, John Subject: RE: LGD v. CMO, 06-726 (D. Del.) - 2008-07-08 Werner ltr Brzezynski re Protective Order & Document Production.pdf Tom: Your last-minute response is disappointing. It appears that CMO may not intend to discuss or cooperate on email production. If that is CMO's position, you or someone on the CMO team could have informed us of that position before your email yesterday. If CMO refuses to cooperate with LG Display and AUO, LG Display has no interest in wasting time attempting to reach an agreement with CMO, in response to CMO's proposal to modify the parties' existing agreement on the production of email discovery as summarized in Brian Range's April 3, 2008 letter. Your unfounded assumption that LG Display has not collected email, moreover, is entirely incorrect. LG Display has expended tremendous effort and resources to collect email for processing and production. We deferred our production of the emails for the purpose of reaching an agreement on how emails should be produced, in response to your July 8 letter. We understood your July 8 letter to suggest an interest in reaching such an agreement. Likewise, AUO agrees that email production should await an agreement. If CMO does not agree to discuss this issue with us before production, our position will be that CMO has no basis to object or complain in the future concerning these issues, after refusing to discuss them in advance. LG Display will not incur the expense and burden of producing email more than once in this case. CMO's refusal to discuss these issues is improper and, certainly, is counterproductive. For example, you continue to request production in "searchable form" which is not the parties' existing agreement. In addition, you do not even explain what you mean by "searchable form" , even though I requested clarification from you in my July 11, 2008 letter. How is CMO intending to produce its emails to make them searchable? Are you producing searchable PDF copies? Are you producing TIFF images with extracted text? If so, what extracted text are you planning to produce? What is the volume of email to be produced and on what subjects? You have not provided any specific proposal or clarification for us to consider and discuss in response to my letter. Instead, you merely insist that LG Display produce emails in some non-specified "searchable form" or reserve the right to seek unspecified "relief" from the court.
We intend to continue our discussions with AUO regarding format and categories of email production. We hope that you will consider joining our discussion so that we can reach a global agreement applicable to all parties. LG Display is working diligently to produce discovery in this case and we will continue to do so. Nonetheless, if you intend to raise any issue with the Court concerning the above, please let us know in advance which issue, and we will likewise seek relief as necessary and appropriate. Regards, Cass -----Original Message----From: Werner, Tom [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 3:32 PM To: Christenson, Cass
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-9
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 4
Cc: #CMO/LPL [Int]; Giza, Alexander; Hoffman, Adam; Kagan, Jonathan; ~Tyler, M. Craig; ~Holloway, Julie; ~Range, Brian; ~Yip, Vincent; ~Garnett, Terry; ~Wied, Peter; ~Murray, Katherine; ~Shaw, John; ~Pascale, Karen; ~Chiu, Jay; [email protected]; ~Platt, Christian; Bono, Gaspare; Brzezynski, Lora; Goodwyn, Tyler; ~Kirk, Richard; Lomas, John Subject: RE: LGD v. CMO, 06-726 (D. Del.) - 2008-07-08 Werner ltr Brzezynski re Protective Order & Document Production.pdf Cass, As you have known since the 12th, I am on vacation in Hawai'i. We understand your correspondence to indicate that LGD has failed to timely collect emails responsive to CMO's document requests. The parties stipulated to an extension of the deadline for document production. CMO has expended substantial resources to produce responsive documents - including emails - by that deadline. LGD's eleventh hour attempt to delay its email production is improper. Should LGD fail to produce emails by the deadline, CMO may seek appropriate relief from the Court. CMO intends to produce electronically stored information in searchable form, pursuant to Rule 34. We expect LGD to do the same. Should LGD fail to produce electronically stored information in searchable form, CMO may seek appropriate relief from the Court. Very truly yours, Thomas C. Werner, Esq. Irell & Manella LLP 1800 Avenue of the Stars Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276 [email protected] (310) 203-7956 (direct) (310) 968-2792 (mobile) (310) 282-5798 (direct fax) -----Original Message----From: Christenson, Cass [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 5:28 AM To: Werner, Tom Cc: #CMO/LPL [Int]; Giza, Alexander; Hoffman, Adam; Kagan, Jonathan; ~Tyler, M. Craig; ~Holloway, Julie; ~Range, Brian; ~Yip, Vincent; ~Garnett, Terry; ~Wied, Peter; ~Murray, Katherine; ~Shaw, John; ~Pascale, Karen; ~Chiu, Jay; [email protected]; ~Platt, Christian; ~Bono, Gaspare; ~Brzezynski, Lora; ~Goodwyn, Tyler; ~Kirk, Richard; ~Lomas, John Subject: RE: LGD v. CMO, 06-726 (D. Del.) - 2008-07-08 Werner ltr Brzezynski re Protective Order & Document Production.pdf Tom: This email follows up on my voice mail message from yesterday and my July 11, 2008 letter responding to your July 8, 2008 letter on email discovery. We have open issues to discuss concerning the scope and format of email production, as raised in our abovereferenced letters. We are discussing these issues with AUO as well to coordinate. I understand from your message that you are out of the office this week. AUO is amenable to a brief extension of time to produce email discovery. I assume that CMO likewise agrees that we should briefly postpone email productions in this case so that we can complete our discussions and hopefully reach an agreement as to scope and format of email discovery.
-2-
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-9
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 4 of 4
My July 11 letter proposed August 15 as a date to complete email production, which will allow us to continue our discussions on email scope and format. Please let me know whether CMO agrees to the August 15 date. I also look forward to your thoughts on how to efficiently complete email discovery. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation. Regards, Cass -----Original Message----From: Christenson, Cass Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 5:20 PM To: 'Werner, Tom' Cc: '#CMO/LPL [Int]'; 'Giza, Alexander'; 'Hoffman, Adam'; 'Kagan, Jonathan'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; 'Platt, Christian'; Bono, Gaspare; Brzezynski, Lora; Goodwyn, Tyler; 'Richard Kirk'; Lomas, John Subject: RE: LGD v. CMO, 06-726 (D. Del.) - 2008-07-08 Werner ltr Brzezynski re Protective Order & Document Production.pdf Tom: Please see my attached July 11, 2008 letter. Regards, Cass -----Original Message----From: Werner, Tom [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 7:51 PM To: Brzezynski, Lora Cc: ~Platt, Christian; ~Range, Brian; ~Kirk, Richard; Bono, Gaspare; Goodwyn, Tyler; Christenson, Cass; Lomas, John Subject: LGD v. CMO, 06-726 (D. Del.) - 2008-07-08 Werner ltr Brzezynski re Protective Order & Document Production.pdf
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments: 2008-07-08 Werner ltr Brzezynski re Protective Order & Document Production.pdf
-3-
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-10
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-10
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 2 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-10
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-10
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 4 of 4
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-11
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 6
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF I
840 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-6324 TELEPHONE (949) 760-0991 FACSIMILE (949) 760-5200
Document 424-11
Filed 09/04/2008
LLP
Page 2 of 6
RELL
& MANELLA
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
18 0 0 AV E N U E O F T H E S TA R S , S U I T E 9 0 0
TELEPHONE (310) 277-1010
FACSIMILE (310) 203-7199 WEBSITE: www.irell.com
L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 - 4 276
WRITER'S DIRECT
TELEPHONE (310) 203-7956 FACSIMILE (310) 203-7199
[email protected]
June 30, 2008
VIA E-MAIL Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1900 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 [email protected] Re: Dear Lora: I write to respond to your letter of June 12, 2008 to Jon Kagan regarding CMO's responses to LGD's Requests for Production, as well as your letter of this morning to Adam Hoffman regarding CMO's responses to LGD's Interrogatories. We are not available on Wednesday at 12:00 p.m. PDT for a meet and confer, but we intend to propose some alternative times shortly. We agree that we need to have a meet and confer in the near future to address some of the outstanding discovery issues. Among the issues the parties need to address immediately are the ones I raised in my letter of June 17, 2008, regarding LGD's deficient responses to CMO's Requests for Production, and today's letter outlining deficiencies in LGD's responses to CMO's Interrogatories. Please respond to these letters immediately, as we believe the meet and confer process will be more productive if we have time to review LGD's position well before the call. In that spirit of cooperation, we are providing the following response to LGD's letters. Please note that the headings below are meant only to facilitate discussion and resolution of the issues raised in your letters. Discovery Relating to Worldwide Sales: Throughout your letters, LGD asserts that CMO is obligated to produce documents relating to CMO products sold worldwide regardless of whether or not they are made, used, sold, imported, or offered for sale in the United States. LGD thereby seeks information regarding products that are not at issue in this litigation, and LGD proffers no explanation justifying its overbroad requests. Instead, LGD suggests that its Document Requests--which are directed only at CMO--obligate CMO to provide discovery regarding what unidentified "intermediaries" might "eventually" do with CMO's products. We fail to see how CMO can provide information regarding those LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp., CV No. 06-726 (D. Del.)
1888860
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF IRELL & MANELLA
LLP
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Document 424-11
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 6
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. June 30, 2008 Page 2
unnamed entities' activities. Further, your June 12 letter incorrectly asserts that AUO has "agreed to produce relevant documents regarding their products sold worldwide." By their June 20th and 23rd letters, counsel for AUO made clear this is not the case.1 Like AUO, we stand ready to consider this issue further should LGD provide some basis for the breadth of its request. We are unaware, however, of any controlling precedent that justifies LGD's admitted attempts to obtain discovery into sales that bear no connection whatsoever to the United States. LGD's bare assertion that "[p]roducts sold worldwide are certainly within the scope of relevant discovery in this litigation" sheds no light on the legal bases for LGD's assertions. We look forward to receiving more information at the meet and confer. CMO Products and CMO Customers: LGD's contention that CMO must provide discovery regarding customers of all CMO products regardless of whether or not they are made, used, sold, imported, or offered for sale in the United States is similarly improper. LGD's purported limitation of that demand to products "defined by LG Display" does nothing to narrow LGD's request absent clarification of that purported definition, i.e., what exactly are "all reasonably similar CMO products?" We look forward to receiving LGD's clarification of this request at the meet and confer. Summaries: Regarding summaries, if LGD is aware of CMO documents responsive to LGD's requests, please identify them. As CMO understands LGD's requests for summaries, and as reflected in CMO's responses, LGD demands that CMO create documents responsive to those requests. We are also unable to find in LGD's requests many of the specific pieces of information you now contend those requests seek. Given the rift in the parties' understandings, we believe a discussion is necessary to clarify LGD's requests. LGD's Document Request No. 10: This request is substantially overbroad: All documents and communications concerning the use, making, importation, sale, and offer to sell, in or to the U.S. since December 1, 2000 of LCD modules or LCD panels made or sold by or for you, or LCD display products that include LCD modules or LCD panels made by you, including any documents that identify each person that imported, received, purchased, distributed, sold or offered for sale in or to the U.S. each LCD display product, LCD module, and LCD panel, and the quantity, price, Brand, and Part Number of each LCD display product, LCD module, and LCD panel imported, received, purchased, distributed, and sold each month since December 1, 2000.
1
To avoid any further problems of this type, should LGD reference AUO in correspondence to CMO, please be certain to copy those other parties. I have copied counsel for AUO on this letter.
1888860
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF IRELL & MANELLA
LLP
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Document 424-11
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 4 of 6
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. June 30, 2008 Page 3
CMO's response is appropriate based on its overbreadth and is further predicated on the fact that the request overlaps with numerous other of LGD's requests. Please therefore identify what documents you contend are responsive to this request that are not responsive to other LGD requests. Moreover, CMO has provided a document in response to LGD's Interrogatory No. 7 from the Texas action that shows sales of CMO Products, including the transaction date, customer, product model, quantity, price, and shipment or delivery destination. Market Research Documents: CMO is likewise willing to discuss and determine a mutually agreeable scope of the parties' production of these documents. In particular, as noted in my June 17 letter, we are interested to learn LGD's justification for refusing to produce any documents in response to CMO's Document Request No. 26, which is directed at these kinds of documents. Document Request No. 28: In response to this request (which is one of the many requests subsumed by the breadth of Document Request No. 10), CMO agreed to produce the requested documents. We are unaware of how "invoices, shipping records, and purchase orders" are not documents in CMO's possession that are "sufficient to identify" the recipients of CMO's products. Please explain what other documents LGD believes CMO is obligated to produce in response to this request. Document Request No. 30: We will investigate whether any responsive privileged documents exist, and either confirm that they do not, or provide a log. In addition to intending to discuss with you an agreement among all parties limiting our obligations to log privileged documents from prior or other pending litigations, we had hoped to learn whether or not LGD intends to provide more than the two privilege log entries it has served between both the Texas and Delaware litigations. We appreciate that you have raised these issues, and we look forward to discussing them at the meet and confer. Document Request No. 31: LGD's request--even as narrowed by your letter, which may actually both narrow in some respects and broaden in others this request, given your stated position on the worldwide scope of LGD's discovery requests--seeks a large universe of documents, regarding, for example, the repair of damage to CMO products that occurred during shipping. Such documents are wholly irrelevant to this litigation. CMO reasonably limited its response and agrees to produce warranty / repair service agreements and supporting documents that CMO locates after a reasonable search. We invite LGD to narrow this overbroad and unduly burdensome request. Product Samples: All of the parties should attempt to come to an agreement regarding the provision of product samples in relation to the claims at issue in the to be consolidated cases. We suggest a separate meet and confer on that issue.
1888860
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF IRELL & MANELLA
LLP
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Document 424-11
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 5 of 6
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. June 30, 2008 Page 4
Document Request Nos. 40, 42, 4345 4754, 5658, 6466, 6970, 77, and 80: LGD's characterization of CMO's responses to these requests is inaccurate, and your decision to group together these requests without identifying specific issues makes responding to your claims difficult. Furthermore, your letter is internally inconsistent, first alleging that CMO is delaying production of documents to certain requests and then later acknowledging that CMO has agreed to produce documents responsive to the same requests. To be clear, CMO is not delaying for any reason the production of responsive documents we have located. Moreover, many of these requests are duplicative of requests LGD has served in the Texas case, and documents responsive to those request have now been produced in this action. CMO is also continuing to search for responsive documents and will timely produce them. To the extent CMO's responses to these requests are impacted by the consolidation of the cases, CMO will supplement them accordingly. We are hopeful the parties can come to agreement on a schedule for supplementation of discovery responses as we move towards consolidation. Document Request Nos. 6162: CMO agreed to produce license agreements, does not intend to exclude from that production agreements reflecting covenants not to sue, and does not intend to exclude addendums, amendments, and exhibits to those agreements. We are unaware of any other "related agreements" responsive to this request. Should LGD wish to discuss narrowing the scope of this request, for example to exclude privileged drafts of such agreements, we are amenable to such a discussion, and will revise our objections accordingly. Otherwise, CMO's objections are appropriate, particularly in light of LGD's flat refusal to produce any documents relating to the settlement of LGD's patent claims. As noted in my June 17 letter, we look forward to receiving LGD's explanation for that refusal. Document Request No. 74: Please cite to any authority that supports LGD's demand that CMO identify documents responsive to LGD's Document Requests by Bates number. We are aware of none. Document Request No. 76: LGD's focus on documents in CMO's possession regarding LGD's own litigations is perplexing given LGD's apparent refusal to itself produce any documents from any of those litigations, despite our explicit and repeated requests. See, e.g., my letter to you of June 17, 2008, to which I have yet to receive any response. We suggest the parties confer soon regarding the scope of our respective production obligations regarding those litigations, though we see no reason for LGD to continue to refuse to produce at least the non-confidential trial transcripts for LG.Philips LCD Co. Ltd. v. Tatung Company et al, Civil Action No. 05-292-JJF (United States Court for the District of Delaware) and LG Philips LCD Co. Ltd. v. Tatung Co. of America et al., Civil Action No. 02-6775-CBM (United States Court for the Central District of California). To the extent any of the materials from LGD's litigations contain color, please ensure that color copies are provided. We repeat our request that LGD produce these documents immediately, and to immediately take all steps necessary to obtain consent to produce materials restricted by
1888860
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF IRELL & MANELLA
LLP
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Document 424-11
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 6 of 6
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. June 30, 2008 Page 5
other litigation protective orders, if any, to prevent further prejudice to CMO's understanding of LGD's previously litigated patents. Document Request No. 8182: These documents are publicly available, and equally accessible to both CMO and LGD. Nonetheless, CMO will produce the additional documents that LGD now insists we produce. We expect LGD to refrain from objecting to the production of documents on the ground that they are publicly available. CMO's Interrogatory Responses: The parties have reached agreement that the undisputed provisions of the Interim Protective Order are in full force and effect, and have also agreed that discovery served in the Texas case is now deemed served in the Delaware case. On that basis, we believe that many of the issues raised in your letter regarding CMO's responses to LGD's Interrogatories are more directed at form than substance, given that LGD admits it has received substantive responses for the Interrogatories it then contends must be supplemented. As we noted above, we are hopeful the parties can come to agreement on a schedule for supplementation of discovery responses as we move towards consolidation, and we look forward to discussing that at the meet and confer. Regarding LGD's Interrogatory Nos. 16 and 19, CMO agrees to supplement its responses to these interrogatories in accordance with that schedule. Thank you. Very truly yours,
Thomas C. Werner cc: Christian Platt, Esq. ([email protected]) Brian Range, Esq. ([email protected])
1888860
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-12
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF I
840 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-6324 TELEPHONE (949) 760-0991 FACSIMILE (949) 760-5200
Document 424-12
Filed 09/04/2008
LLP
Page 2 of 3
RELL
& MANELLA
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
18 0 0 AV E N U E O F T H E S TA R S , S U I T E 9 0 0
TELEPHONE (310) 277-1010
FACSIMILE (310) 203-7199 WEBSITE: www.irell.com
L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 - 4 276
WRITER'S DIRECT
TELEPHONE (310) 203-7956 FACSIMILE (310) 203-7199
[email protected]
July 31, 2008 VIA E-MAIL
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1900 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 [email protected] Re: Dear Lora: I write regarding our ongoing efforts to meet and confer regarding the appropriate geographic scope of discovery into the products accused of infringement in this case, and to respond to your letter of earlier today. CMO has repeatedly attempted to meet and confer with LGD on this issue. LGD made clear during our meet and confer today that it does not want to engage in that process, and instead appears intent on filing its premature motion. Indeed, LGD's assertion today that answering the questions posed in my past letters and during the meet and confer is a "waste of time" is not well taken. We continue to hope that we can resolve this dispute without Court intervention. We also continue to await LGD's citation to the legal authority on which LGD relies to demand discovery into all CMO products regardless of whether or not those products are made, used, sold, offered for sale or imported into the United States, and regardless of whether or not the customers who receive those products have any connection to the United States. We ask again that LGD provide it. LGD points CMO only to the order reflected in the August 23, 2005 hearing transcript from CEA v. Samsung in support of its threatened motion to compel. CMO does not understand, and LG has not yet explained, why production of the same financial and technical information ordered by the CEA Court, updated to current, will not satisfy LGD's demands. CMO still does not understand why LGD is entitled to a different remedy than the one ordered by LGD's sole cited authority. We continue to await LGD's explanation. LGD also continues to refuse to outline the contours of any agreement between LGD and AUO on this issue. I further requested during today's meet and confer that LGD identify in its document production the worldwide sales information LGD claims to have produced. Reviewing those documents will allow CMO to understand exactly what information LGD
1906693
LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp., CV No. 06-726 (D. Del.)
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF IRELL & MANELLA
LLP
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Document 424-12
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 3
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. July 31, 2008 Page 2
contends must be produced, so that we can advise our client of the precise relief that LGD seeks. We reiterate our request that LGD provide this information. As you know, we are continuing to review the briefing from CEA, which we received just yesterday, and only through our own efforts. CMO and LGD have already scheduled a meet and confer for Monday afternoon (you advised me today you are not available for a meet and confer tomorrow). CMO's review and assessment of the legal issues reflected in the CEA briefing should be complete by then, and we are hopeful that LGD will discuss those issues with us. To the extent LGD still intends to file its motion without further meeting and conferring, we request that LGD include this letter as an exhibit to its motion. I will not endeavor to address the many inaccurate statements in your letter of earlier today. Your decision to mischaracterize our meet and confer efforts only hinders our ability to resolve this matter without resort to motion practice. Very truly yours,
Thomas C. Werner cc: Christian Platt, Esq. ([email protected]) Brian Range, Esq. ([email protected])
1906693
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-13
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF I
840 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 400 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660-6324 TELEPHONE (949) 760-0991 FACSIMILE (949) 760-5200
Document 424-13
Filed 09/04/2008
LLP
Page 2 of 3
RELL
& MANELLA
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
18 0 0 AV E N U E O F T H E S TA R S , S U I T E 9 0 0
TELEPHONE (310) 277-1010
FACSIMILE (310) 203-7199 WEBSITE: www.irell.com
L O S A N G E L E S , C A L I F O R N I A 9 0 0 6 7 - 4 276
WRITER'S DIRECT
TELEPHONE (310) 203-7956 FACSIMILE (310) 203-7199
[email protected]
August 8, 2008 VIA E-MAIL
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1900 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 [email protected] Re: Dear Counsel: I write regarding our ongoing efforts to meet and confer regarding the appropriate geographic scope of discovery into the products accused of infringement in this case. During our conversation on Monday, August 4, 2008, LGD stated that LGD had not yet conducted the legal research supporting its threatened motion to compel. Instead, LGD attempted to prematurely end our meet and confer in the middle of CMO's discussion of the legal research that CMO had conducted on this issue. Counsel for LGD declared that, as far as CMO's meeting and conferring efforts were concerned, LGD's position was that "enough is enough." CMO nonetheless persisted in continuing the meet and confer, and discussed in particular the case law that your firm cited in the briefing from CEA v. Samsung, which CMO obtained only through our own efforts. You confirmed during our meet and confer that Judge Jordan's order in CEA relied heavily on the obviousness arguments raised in that briefing. As I stated, we agree that is the case, which makes LGD's continuing unexplained refusal to accept CMO's production of the same financial and technical information ordered by Judge Jordan, updated to current, all the more perplexing. Further, during our meet and confer, LGD also continued to refuse to outline the contours of its alleged agreement between LGD and AUO on this issue, despite having sent a letter earlier in the day stating that LGD had reviewed AUO's production in detail. LGD also continued to refuse to identify in its document production the worldwide sales information LGD claims to have produced, which documents will allow CMO to understand exactly what information LGD contends must be produced, so that we can advise our client of the precise relief that LGD seeks. We reiterate our request that LGD provide this information, and suggest the parties meet and confer on Tuesday, August 12, 2008, at any LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp., CV No. 06-726 (D. Del.)
1912583
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF IRELL & MANELLA
LLP
A REGISTERED LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
Document 424-13
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 3
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. August 8, 2008 Page 2
time between 9:00 a.m. and 12:00 p.m. PDT to attempt to resolve this issue without Court intervention. LGD asserted in a recent submission to the Court that it intended to file a motion. When we attempted to discuss that motion with you yesterday, you refused and abruptly ended the conversation. To the extent LGD intends to file a motion regarding the appropriate geographic scope of discovery into the products accused of infringement in this case without further meeting and conferring, we request that LGD include this letter as an exhibit to its motion. Very truly yours,
Thomas C. Werner cc: Christian Platt, Esq. ([email protected]) Brian Range, Esq. ([email protected])
1912583
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-14
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-14
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 2 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-14
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 3 of 3
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-15
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 1 of 6
Case 1:06-cv-00726-JJF
Document 424-15
Filed 09/04/2008
Page 2 of 6
*·* ma **
Denyef
Brn»efe tos Angeles
McKenpaLong &Aldrkke^
A»t«iKy*»LawO 1900 K Street NW * Washington, DC 20006-1108 Tel: 202.49&7500* Fax: 202.496.7756
Sacramento
***** *****
San Die9
SanFrarxtoco
www.mckennaloiig.com
Washington, D.C,
LORAA.BKZEZYNSKI (202) 496-7239
SMAH. ADDRESS lbrzezynskl@mckennafong,cpm
July 28,2008
VIA E-MAIL Thomas C. Werner, Esq. Irell&ManellaLLP 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276 Re: Dear Tom: This letter concerns CMO's ongoing refusal to produce large categories of highly relevant and responsive documents, CMO has placed extreme and unreasonable limits on its document production, resulting in substantial prejudice to LG Display. Although CMO continues to "manufacture" issues with LG Display's document production related almost entirely to the form of LG Display's document production and not the quality of LO Display's production. LG Display's primary disputes with CMO concern the paucity of meaningful documents in CMO's production and its refusal to engage in good faith in this discovery process. 1) CMO has improperly limited its entire production of technical information, including its mask and GDS files, to CMO products "made to specifications suitable for sale in the United States and shipped directly to the United States" and to "only those products identified in LG Display's response to CMO's Interrogatory No. 2." By this limitation, CMO has severely limited its prod
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms