Free Declaration - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01371-JJF Document 132-6 Filed 11/11/2005 Page 1 of 3
Exhibit E
Letter Sent to Mr. Seaman on October 5, 2005

Case 1 :04-cv-01371-JJF Document 132-6 Filed 11/11/2005 Page 2 of 3
901 New York Avenue, NW • Washington, DC 20001-4413 ¤ 202 .408.4000 ¤ Fax 202.40B.4400
WWW.fII’\I’I€g3f1.COl'T1
rm N acm
gwgrigiycx Lronst M. Laveuue
GAR HV St s7120s.274s
D U N N E R iu \ione|[email protected]
October 5, 2005
John M. Seaman, Esq.
BOUCHARD MARGULES & FRIEDLANDER
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1400
Wilmington, Delaware 1 980
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int 'l, Inc.,
D. Del., C.A. No. 04-1371 (IIE)
Dear John:
This letter responds to your letter of Tuesday, September 27, 2005, relating to Power
lntegration’s September 13, 2005 subpoena of LG Electronics, U.S.A., Inc. ("LGE-USA").
As you lcnow, on September 22, 2005, Andy Sonu and I informed you that LGE·USA
had no documents or information responsive to the subpoena of LGE-USA. Further, in the
absence of responsive documents, and because a deposition would be useless and unnecessary
under the circumstances, we asked whether your client would withdraw the subpoena.
Subsequently, in your September 27, 2005 letter, you refused to withdraw Power
1ntegrations’s subpoena of LGE—USA. Furthermore, citing Afms .SZP.A. v. Krauss-Majfei Corp.,
113 F.R.D. 127, l32 (D. Del. 1986), you contended: “[W]e do not accept the premise that
responsive information in the possession of a corporate parent is outside the possession, custody
or control ofthe subsidiary." You also contended: "[W]hcther the information requested is
located in the United States or Korea, LG has an obligation to search for and produce documents
responsive to plaintiffs . . . subpoena." Finally, in your letter, you made the following corrgcj
statement, "you believed that LG’s United States entities do not have the information plaintiff
seeks," and furthermore, you also made the following incorrect statement, "but that the
information is in the possession of LG’s parent in Korea." During my conversations with you, l
explained that l.GE·USA did not have any infomation responsive to the subpoena because the
consumer electronic products sold by LGE-U SA are manufactured primarily in Korea, and LGE-
USA does not have infomation about the desi gn, manufacture, or assembly of those products,
e.g., which would identify the name of the circuit suppliers used in Korea for those products.
However, l did not make any representations regarding what infomation may or may not be
available to LG Electronics, Inc. of Korea (‘“LGE-Korea"), the foreign parent of LGE-USA.
Washington, DC • Atlanta, CA - Cambridge, MA · Palo Alto, CA - Reston, VA · Brussels · Taipei ¤ Tokyo

Case 1 :04-cv-01371-JJF Document 132-6 Filed 11/11/2005 Page 3 of 3
John M. Seaman, Esq.
ocmber s, 2005 $,;;,*3,**;*;
Page 2 ¤ urwtnm
Furthemrore, your contentions regarding the obligations of LGE·U SA pursuant to the
subpoena are legally erroneous and factually incorrect for at least the following reasons:
(1) LGB-USA and LGE-Korea are separate and independent legal entities; (2) LGE·USA does
not have control over LGE—Korea, particularly as a subsidiary; and (3) LGE-USA does not have
possession, custody, or control ofthe documents or information available to LGB-Korea, which
would identify the name ofthe circuit suppliers used by LGE·Korea for its products. Thus,
unless you have some basis to challenge these points, LGE-USA has no duty to investigate either
the documents or information of LGE-Korea. Furthermore, as for your citation of Ajros S.P.A. v.
Krauss-Majei Corp., 113 F.R.D. 127, 132 (D. Del. 1986), that ease deals with a party
subsidiary, not a non-party subsidiary (i.e., a subsidiary that is not party to the litigation). The
situation here is much different, in that Power 1ntegrations’ subpoena is directed to a non·party
subsidiary; and, a subpoena to a non-party subsidiary does not result in obligations to a non-party
parent, absent an extraordinary showing that the non—party subsidiary and non-party parent had
"respective business operations so intertwined as to render meaningless their corporate
identities? See, ag., PCI Parfums et Cosmetiques Int 'I v. Perfumania, Case No. 93 Civ. 9009,
1998 WL 646635, at *3 (S.D,N.Y. Sept. 21, 1998); see generally Pennwalt Corporation v.
Plough, Inc., 85 F.R.D. 257, 263 (D. Del. 1979). Further, because a subsidiary is not "in
control" of a parent, courts also rarely impose obligations on the subsidiary for information in the
possession of the parent, again "unless the respective business operations of each entity ‘are so
intertwined as to render meaningless their separate corporate identities."’ Novartis
Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., 206 F.R.D. 392, 395 (D. Del. 2002)
(citation omitted). Accordingly, as there is absolutely no basis to contend that LGE-USA and
LG-Korea have "meaning1ess corporate identities," there is simply no basis for Power
Integrations to contend that a subpoena of LGE-USA imposes obligations on LGE-Korea.
Accordingly, LGE-USA renews the request that Power Integrations withdraw the
September 13, 2005 subpoena. Please confirm that you will withdraw the subpoena by this
Friday, October 7, 2005, so that we may avoid the expense of a motion for a protective order.
Lionel M. Lavenue
LML/yec