Free Remark - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR Document 103 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 1 of 2
E-Mail Request for Emergency Relief
1. Case Number: " 04 -cv- 1199 =-SLR .
2. Check the box that applies:
nf.; Requesting a teleconference with the parties and the court
I g Requesting an in-person conference with the parties and the court
Requesting either of the above listed options at the court's determination
3. BRIEFLY describe the reason for this emerge__ncy request: _
Defendants request that the Court order SRI to produce Phillip Porras, one of two
fnamed inventors, for deposition in January 2006. On Dec. 16, 2005, Defendants
noticed Mr. F’orras' deposition for January 11-12. SRI also designated Mr. Porras for
13 different 30(b)(6) topics. SRI refuses to produce Mr. Porras until Feb. 21, 6 weeksi
Qlater than Defendants’ request, and approximately two weeks before the March 10
`close of fact discovery. SRI also refuses to produce the other inventor, Mr. Valdes, ;
Qprior to late Feb. SRI's refusal to proceed with inventor depositions until the end of _
ifact discovery severely limits Defendants' ability to do follow-up fact discovery and
prepare expert reports due March 17, and prohibits Defendants from taking inventor
testimony prior to the Feb. 17 exchange of binding claim constructions. By contrast,
SRI has already taken depositions of both Defendants. SRI states that two of their
counsel are unavailable. However, seven different attorneys have represented SRI.
Defendants wilI...be seve.relv.nrei.udicecI bv.S.RI‘s delav of critica.l inventor depositions. E
*Any text added beyond the limits of this space will be disregarded by the court.
4. Name of opposing counsel contacted about this request:€K. Prescott; J. Horvath ,
5. Response of opposing counsel to this req_uest:
§SRI admitted Mr. Porras is available on January 19, 20, 23, 25 and 27. Two of SRI's
iseven attorneys have a trial from January 18-27, and a Markman hearing through
gFeb. 7. SRI refuses to produce Mr. Porras for deposition until Feb. 21.
6. Name of local counsel making this request:§M.,Mattereri , , , , ·
7. Today’s Date: grahirary s, 2006 ° ”‘"” ‘ ‘`”` M
For court use onlv:
The court declines to get involved in this scheduling
dispute at this juncture. Defendants can make another
application for relief if the later scheduled depositions
lead to follow up discovery that cannot be accommodated by
plaintiffs and the court’s schedule in place.

Case 1:04-cv-01199-SLR Document 103 Filed 01/09/2006 Page 2 of 2
Opposing Counsel's Response to E-Mail Request for Emergency Relief
1. Case Number: 04 -cv- 1199 -SLR
2. BRIEFLY state your response to the emergency request made by opposing counsel:
This is a scheduling dispute that does not warrant a request for emergency relief.
Although SRI has made 4 witnesses available for deposition on 22 topics in Jan., it is
only able to make Mr. Porras available on Feb. 9 and 10. This is due to SRI's lead
trial counseI's attendence at an ITC trial and Markman hearing in Jan. and early Feb.
As Defendants recognize, Mr. Porras is a very important fact and 30(b)(6) witness, ‘
and for that reason SRI wants one of its 2 chief lawyers to prepare and defend him.
The Defendant's will not be prejudiced by this short delay of a few weeks. Their
claims of prejudice amount to little more than speculation about follow up discovery .
that will likely never be needed, and overemphasis on the importance of inventor
testimony to claim construction, which is marginally relevant at best. Moreover, to I
alleviate such concerns, SRI has offered and is willing to delay the exchange of claim
construction statements and expert reports, all of which can be done without
disturbing the Court's Hearing Schedule.
*Any text added to beyond the limits of this space will be disregarded by the court.
3. Name of local counsel submitting this response: John F. Honrath
4. Today’s Date: Jan. 7, 2006 I I A