Free Motion for Protective Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv—O0960-SLR Document 119-6 Filed O4/25/2006 Page 1 013
E h 'b 't 2

_ Page 1 of 2
Case 1.04-cv—00960-SLR Document 119-6 Filed O4/25/2006 Page 2 of 3

From: Cates, Emily [maiIto:[email protected]]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 4:48 PM
To: Bellew, Sean; Whittenburg, Mark (GE Indust, GE Fanuc)
Cc: Papetti, Randy; Talbot, Cory; Patrick, SherryAnn; Weinzweig, David
Subject: Conference Call Highlights
Sean
I'm writing to confirm the highlights of our conference call today with Mark Whittenburg regarding the GE Fanuc
subpoena. We agreed that if Mr. Whittenburg does not hear from either of us about a mutual agreement on these
issues, he will, by 5:00 EST tomorrow, produce: 1) redacted contracts; 2) 5-6 e-mails; and 3) a total
number reflecting the amount of money GE has paid J-Squared, unless he receives an order instructing him not
to do so. Accordingly, I agreed not to Hle a motion for contempt tomorrow. However, I did not agree that Motorola
would refrain from seeking further information, as the subpoena is much broader than this information, and as I
remember lt, you indicated you would object if Motorola decided to seek further information.
I believe your position is that some of the items we have requested are irrelevant to this case and possibly contain
confidential business information and that you want to review them first. I indicated that whether you believe this
to be the case or not, you lack standing to object to the GE Fanuc subpoena, that the standard for relevance is
very broad, and that if you are able to demonstrate that these documents contain confidential information you
have a high burden of demonstrating harm to your client in disclosure of this information, especially in light of the
protective order already in place in this case. Also, I indicated that your objections do not relieve Mr. Whittenburg
of his obligation to comply with the subpoena.
We left things that you would contact your clients to discuss the three items described above, and if they did not
agree to Mr. Whittenburg's production of those items, you would file a motion for protective order, which you said
would stay Mr. Whittenburg's obligation to comply with the subpoena. I indicated that we are running out of time,
noted our expert's disclosure deadline and the upcoming summary judgment deadline, and said that Motorola
would likewise be forced to file a motion to compel as a result of your improper interference with the GE Fanuc
subpoena.
I do hope we can resolve this issue and look forward to hearing from you soon.
Emily
Emily S. Cates
Lewis and Roca LLP
40 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-4429
Phone: 602-262-5757
Fax: 602-734-3947
[email protected]
For more infomation about Lewis and Roca LLP, please go to
www.lewisandroca.com.
Phoenix (602) 262-5311
Tucson (520) 622-2090
4/25/2006

Case 1:04-cv—O0960-SLR Document 119-6 Filed O4/25/2006 PageP§$§°%0f2
Las Vegas (702) 949-8200
Reno (775) 770-2600
Albuquerque (505) 764-5400
This message is intended only for the use of the individual
or entity to which it is addressed. If the reader of this message
is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible
for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of
this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to
the sender of this E-Mail by return E-Mail or by telephone.
In accordance with Intemal Revenue Service Circular 230, we advise
you that if this email contains any tax advice, such tax advice was
not intended or written to be used, and it cannot be used, by any
taxpayer for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed
on the taxpayer.
4/25/2006