Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF Document 136-2 Filed O3/27/2008 Page 1 of 2
1
1

Exhibit “A"
1

Case 1 :04-cv-01436-JJF Document 136-2 Filed O3/27/2008 Page 2 of 2
l
l
. \X/ILMERIAALE
Michael]. Summersgill
J +1 an sas ozoi to
+1 sw szs sooo to
[email protected]
March 20, 2008 2
Becky Thorson, Esq.
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi LLP
2800 LaSalle Plaza
800 LaSalle Avenue .
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Re: Kodak v. Speasl, No. l:05—cv—039l64 (Cal. Super.); St. Clair v. Samsung, C.A. No. 04-1436
(D. Del.)
Dear Becky:
I write in response to your letter of March 20, 2008, in which you state that St. Clair "needs" to
tile the MOU with the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Voluntarily
disclosing the MOU to the District of Delaware will violate the explicit terms ofthe MOU and
therefore constitute a material breach. St. Clair cannot simultaneously breach the MOU while
claiming the benefit ofthe MOU. Accordingly, Kodak opposes St. Clair’s motion.
Very truly yours,
l
Michael J. Summersgill ·
cc: Vito DeBari, Esq. `
1 Naikang Tsao, Esq.
l David Ben—Meir, Esq. I
John Desmarais, Esq. 1
l
l
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr tw, 60 Stare Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Beijing Berlin Boston Brussels London Los Angeles , New York Oxford Palo Alto Waltham Washington
i
1 usmocs ooossaavz
l
l