Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR Document 118 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 1 of 2
MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
1201 NORTH MARKET STREET
P.O. Box 1347
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19899-1347
302 658 9200
JACK B. BLUMENFELD FAX
302 575 7291
302 425 3012 FAX
[email protected] October 7,
BY ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
United States District Court
844 King Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Re: McKesson Information Solutions, LLC v. The T riZetto Group, Inc.,
Civil Action No. 04-1258-SLR
Dear Chief Judge Robinson:
I am writing in response to McKesson's October 4, 2005 letter concerning Rule
30(b)(6) depositions (D.I. 112). On September 22, Your Honor permitted the parties to submit
highlighted versions of depositions for review (D.I. 116 at 61-62). TriZetto did so ODI. 109).
McKesson, however, chose instead to seek relief with respect to 30(b)(6) categories to which
TriZetto had objected well before September 22. We provide the following brief response:
First, McKesson now seeks relief other than taking those 30(b)(6) depositions.
That is because it has already used virtually all of the time allotted to it for such depositions
under the scheduling order.
Second, TriZetto's objections to the categories mentioned are well-founded.
Indeed, it is hard to understand why McKesson noticed a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition seeking
identification of each TriZetto customer, and a description of each transaction with each
customer and the functionality of the products used by that customer (categories 18-20).
TriZetto has produced the documents identifying those customers and transactions and properly
objected to the deposition notice. Other categories (8 and 11-13) sought contentions or
privileged information (e.g., the basis underlying one of TriZetto's contention interrogatory
answers and TriZetto's "investigations or analysis" into the validity and enforceability of the '164
patent). Finally, we objected to category 38 ("The potential impact of this lawsuit on TriZetto's
. . . business") as lacking particularity because it does. We did not understand what McKesson
was asking.

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR Document 118 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
October 7, 2005
Page 2
Third, McKesson demands a "written admissible statement that TriZetto is imable
to produce a witness" on certain topics, even though McKesson provided to us only a letter from
Mr. Randall saying that "McKesson does not currently employ persons to testify with more
knowledge than the information relating to topics 1,3 and 4 disclosed during discovery through
documents and deposition testimony." It is remarkable that McKesson asks the Court to order
TriZetto to provide more than that.
Respectfully,
/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld (#1014)
Jack B. Blumenfeld
JBB/bls
cc: Peter T. Dalleo, Clerk (By Hand)
Thomas J. Allingham, Esquire (By Hand)
Jeffrey G. Randall, Esquire (By Email)
Jeffrey T. Thomas, Esquire (By Email)