Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01371-JJF Document 86 Filed 08/22/2005 Page 1 of 4
F1sH 8c RICHARDSON 1>.c.
Suite 1100
919 N. Market Street
r>.o. Box III4
Wilmington, Delaware
i c eric . ` ‘IU
“ 1 3éJ§£§‘$ W9 "
Telephone
WK. Rr01§rrd50u VIA ELECTRONIC FILING 302 652-5070
1 59‘I9SI
August 22, 2005 §(jj‘g‘;{;6O7
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr. Web $i1¢
United States District Court ""WW‘f[‘°°m
for the District of Delaware mmm ]_ Mmdm IL
844 King Street (so:) 778-8401
Wilmington, DE 19801 _
Email _
Re: Power Integrations Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Intemational mmdm@fmOm
® USDC-D. Del. — C.A. No. 04-1371-JJF
AUSTIN Dear Judge Farnan:
BOSTON Power Integrations, Ir1c.’s ("Power lntegrations") Motion to Amend the Complaint, or
DALLAS in the Altemative, to Compel Defendants to Produce Witnesses ("Motion to Amend
uutrwruu or Compel") is not moot (D.l. 47). Fairchild has not agreed to permit its wholly-
NW YORK owned Korean subsidiary to be added as a defendant, it has not agreed to accept
SAN DIEGO service of process for the Korean subsidiary, and it has not agreed to provide
discovery from the Korean subsidiary regarding the accused devices (other than what
SILICON VALLEY Fairchild unilaterally chooses to provide). In view of these positions, Power
""N mms Integrations’ motion must be heard to resolve these disputes and hopefully limit
“”·*$L*L”GL°N» DC similar disputes in the future.
Initially, Fairchild suggests that Power Integrations is to blame for delaying discovery
in this case and in bringing the instant motion, but Fairchild is wrong. In the
beginning of this case, Fairchild (not Power Integrations) asked for a longer schedule
because relevant information was in Korea. Fairchild admits it has known since at
least February that "the relevant technical discovery was located in Korea."
F airchild’s response letter brief, D.l. 65 at 2. It was Fairchild who produced more
than a million pages of Korean documents (pulled from servers and computers in a
disorganized fashion), followed by additional productions of 275,000 pages of
documents from Korean sources more than a month after the deadline for written
discovery. Fairchild has finally begun to produce documents from the witnesses it
believes will be 30(b)(6) witnesses in the United States——again, more than a month
after the cutoff for document production——and even now Fairchild has refused to
offer any 30(b)(6) witness for depositions in the United States within the current
schedule for depositions.
Perhaps most egregious among Fairchild’s repeated delays, and most relevant to the
present dispute, is F airchild’s delay in contacting the key employees Power
lntegrations sought to depose. Power lntegrations began to identify Korean witnesses
for deposition on June 1, id. at 4, but Fairchild apparently did not seek to secure their

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF Document 86 Filed 08/22/2005 Page 2 of 4
FISH sz RICHARDSON r>.c.
The Honorable Joseph J. Faman, Jr.
August 22, 2005
Page 2
availability until 7:30 p.m. on August 16, the night before Fairchild’s Response was
due. Id. At that time, Fairchild’s counsel learned that many of the Korean witnesses
were no longer employed by Fairchild Korea. Had Fairchild inquired as to the status
of those witnesses when Power lntegrations first identified them and not raised its
baseless objections, Power lntegrations could have taken their depositions before they
left the company} Fairchild did not do so, and it cannot now blame Power
lntegrations for any subsequent departures. Fairchild’s "head in the sand" approach
to discovery fails to satisfy the requirements of the Federal Rules and the rules of this
Court, and it should not be condoned.
Moreover, Fairchild’s assertion that Power lntegrations is responsible for (or
interested in) delay is simply incorrect. Fairchild ignores the steps Power lntegrations
has taken to advance the discovery process, for example:
• Fairchild accuses Power lntegrations of delaying taking depositions, but it
admits that Power lntegrations first began asking for depositions on June 1.
D.l. 65 at 4. Power lntegrations attempted to secure deposition dates for July
or August, but the first witness and date Fairchild offered for deposition, was
September l (offered for the first time on July 28). Id. at Ex. C.
• Fairchild accuses Power lntegrations of delay in bringing the instant Motion
to Amend, D.l. 65 at 2, but Power lntegrations’ efforts to meet and confer in
an attempt to resolve a dispute informally--—as required under the local
rules——does not constitute delay. On July 28, 2005, Fairchild identified its
first witnesses for deposition in Korea. Id'. at Ex. C. Once it became clear that
there was no way to resolve the remaining disputes regarding depositions
informally, Power lntegrations promptly brought the issue to the Court’s
attention.
• Fairchild pretends that Power lntegrations is obstructing discovery from
former employee inventor Klas Eklund, D·.I. 65 at 3, but Fairchild ignores the
fact that Power lntegrations has already voluntarily offered Mr. Eklund for
deposition in his place of residence, Sweden. Ex. A hereto (MRHeadley letter
to de Blank of 8/10/05.) As such, any complaint regarding discovery from
Mr. Eklund is pure misdirection.
• Fairchild argues that the timing of service of formal deposition notices should
somehow impact the ability to take the requested discovery, but this argument
ignores the extensive meet and confer efforts that occurred before Power
1 The declaration included as Exhibit G to F airchild’s Response states that all but one
of those employees who have left have all done so between June l and now.

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF Document 86 Filed 08/22/2005 Page 3 of 4
Frsu ez RrcHARDsoN 1>.c.
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
August 22, 2005
Page 3
Integrations served formal deposition notices. Contrary to the repeated
statements in Fairchild’s brief, Power Integrations did in fact serve a formal
30(b)(6) notice on Fairchild on August l 1,, 2005. That notice is identical to
the draft notice Power Integrations provided Fairchild in July.
Equally absurd is the notion that Power Integrations wants to take five weeks of
deposition testimony in Korea. Power Integrations never asked for unlimited
depositions, and the niles would not permit such discovery even if Power Integrations
sought it. In fact, Power Integrations never demanded two days of testimony from
any individual witness.2
Rather, Power Integrations more recently identified additional potential overseas
witnesses as soon as it learned of the exodus of key Fairchild Korea employees, in an
attempt to avert any tiirther gamesmanship on the part of Fairchild. To do so, Power
Integrations went further down the list of witnesses likely to have relevant
information. As noted in the letter enclosing the deposition notices, Power
Integrations hopes it will not need to take much (if any) testimony from some of these
witnesses, Ex. B hereto (MRI-Ieadley letter to de Blank of 8/ 17/05), but Power
Integrations cannot make that determination before begimiing the depositions in
Korea.
Despite Fairchild’s protests to the contrary, the requested depositions are neither
cumulative nor unduly burdensome. The documents produced from Fairchild Korea
indicate that the individuals noticed have unique roles in the design, development
marketing and sales of the accused products. Given there are many accused products,
it is not surprising that there are multiple individuals who have relevant knowledge
and Fairchild’s assertions that these witnesses "are not familiar" with the accused
devices are unsupported and belied by the documents. lt also goes without saying
that depositions of individuals may cover topics that arise from the answers given and
thus could not be anticipated and addressed in 30(b)(6) deposition notices. As noted
above and relayed to Fairchild’s counsel during meet and confer, Power Integrations
will limit the time spent with later witnesses if the required information has already
been discovered from prior witnesses, thereby eliminating any duplication. Finally,
as Power Integrations has yet to take a single deposition, the parties are not even close
to approaching the hours deadline the Court has set and there can be no undue burden
at this time on Fairchild to produce deposition witnesses.
2 It was Fairchild who suggested that, in view of the scope of their testimony and the
alleged need for interpreters, each 30(b)(6) deposition should be tentatively scheduled
for two days. Power Integrations simply agreed that would be prudent for the
purpose of scheduling.

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF Document 86 Filed 08/22/2005 Page 4 of 4
Frsrr at RrcHARDsoN 1>.c.
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
August 22, 2005
Page 4
Putting aside Fairchild’s rhetoric and posturing, Fairchi1d’s argument boils down to a
fundamental inconsistency: on the one hand, Fairchild says it knew all along about
the need for discovery in Korea and was prepared to provide it. On the other hand,
Fairchild says Power lntegrations does not need to take discovery from Fairchild
Korea or the Korean depositions it seeks. At the end of the day, Fairchild appears to
want sole discretion to determine what it must provide in terms of discovery from the
wholly-owned Korean subsidiary, suggesting that the first million pages of Korean
documents and the initial offer of Korean witnesses (as representatives of the named
parties under Rule 30(b)(6)) was merely discretionary "cooperation.” This argument
is facially absurd, and it is not supported by the facts or law.
The appropriate remedy for Fairchild’s misconduct is not entirely clear, as the
prejudice to Power lntegrations caused by the departure of key witnesses and
information may not be readily curable. The most appropriate approach, however, is
for the Court to add Fairchild Korea as defendant in this matter and to permit Power
lntegrations to take its requested discovery from Fairchild Korea, including providing
the necessary time in the schedule to allow this to occur. Power lntegrations also asks
the Court to order Fairchild Korea to seek cooperation from its former employees and
secure their appearance at deposition to the extent that is feasible. Finally, Power
lntegrations requests the Court to impose an appropriate monetary sanction for
Fairchild’s actions, as it is now clear that Power lntegrations will need an additional
trip to Korea for the depositions of either the former employees (which will take time
to schedule) or those individuals remaining at Fairchild who have relevant knowledge
(and who cannot be confidently identified until the currently-scheduled witnesses
have been deposed).
» tfully,
,2/ t { r
William Jl Marsden J
K J
WJ M/mrh ~-/
50294906.doc
cc: Bas deBlank, Esquire (via email & First Class Mail)
Steven J. Balick, Esquire (via ECF)