Free Objections - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00858-SLR

Document 153

Filed 05/13/2005

Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE LML PATENT CORP., Plaintiff, v. TELECHECK SERVICES, INC., ELECTRONIC CLEARING HOUSE, INC., XPRESSCHEX, INC., AND NOVA INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. Defendants. PLAINTIFF LML PATENT CORP.'S OBJECTIONS TO TELECHECK SERVICES, INC.'S FIRST NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF LML PATENT CORP. PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(b)(6) Plaintiff LML Patent Corp. ("LML") responds to Defendant TeleCheck Services, Inc.'s ("TeleCheck") Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice. LML is willing to meet and confer regarding these objections in advance of the deposition. GENERAL OBJECTIONS 1. LML objects to the date and place specified for the deposition. Subject to the general and ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 04-858 SLR

specific objections contained herein, LML will offer Mr. Gaines (LML's designee for the noticed topics) for such deposition in conjunction with his individual deposition on June 24, 2005, in Vancouver, B.C. 2. Plaintiff objects to the entire Notice of Deposition and to each category therein to the

extent that it seeks to impose obligations beyond those required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or the Local Rules of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.

Case 1:04-cv-00858-SLR

Document 153

Filed 05/13/2005

Page 2 of 5

3.

Plaintiff objects to the entire Notice of Deposition and to each category therein to the

extent that it seeks to elicit testimony subject to and are protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Nothing contained in these objections and responses is intended to be, or in any way constitutes, a waiver of any such applicable privilege or immunity. 4. Plaintiff objects to the entire Notice of Deposition and to each category therein to the

extent that it is overly broad, unduly burdensome, and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 5. Plaintiff objects to the entire Notice of Deposition and to each category therein to the

extent that it is vague and ambiguous. 6. Plaintiff objects to the entire Notice of Deposition and to each category therein to the

extent that it seeks to require testimony containing trade secrets or other confidential commercial or proprietary information, whether of parties or of non-parties to the litigation. 7. Any statement made of an intent to produce a witness is not, and shall not be deemed, an

admission of any factual or legal contention contained in any individual request. LML objects to each category to the extent that it contains any factual or legal misrepresentations or assumptions. 8. Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement and/or amend these objections.

2

Case 1:04-cv-00858-SLR

Document 153

Filed 05/13/2005

Page 3 of 5

RESPONSE TO SUBJECT MATTER CATEGORIES: CATEGORY NO. 1: LML's search for and production of documents and things responsive to TeleCheck's requests for the production of documents; all locations searched by LML in collecting such documents; the names, titles and job responsibilities of all individuals from whom LML requested documents or whose offices LML searched in collecting such documents; and the date(s) on which LML searched for such documents, including the date on which the search for such documents began. OBJECTIONS TO CATEGORY NO. 1: In addition to its General Objections, LML specifically objects to this deposition category to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other applicable privileges or immunities. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, LML will produce a witness, specifically Patrick Gaines, to testify on the efforts undertaken by LML to collect documents responsive to TeleCheck's document requests. CATEGORY NO. 2: All aspects of LML's and LML Payment System Inc.'s ("LPSI") business operations that are described at http://www.lmlpayment.com/html/products.html and that relate to "Electronic Check Conversion"; "Electronic Check Verification"; "Check Collection"; "Electronic Check Re-Presentment"; and "Retail Payment System," as those terms are used on the cited web page including: 1. LML's and LPSI's sales and marketing of the products listed above; 2. LML's and LPSI's corporate organization and structure for the business units that handle the products listed above; 3. LML's and LPSI's personnel and the organization and job responsibilities of those individual [sic] who handle the products listed above; 4. LML's and LPSI's predecessor corporate entities and corporate history; 5. LML's and LPSI's efforts to acquire intellectual property related to the products listed above (including their communication with Messrs. Hills and Nichols and the acquisition of the patents in suit); and 3

Case 1:04-cv-00858-SLR

Document 153

Filed 05/13/2005

Page 4 of 5

6. The USPTO Assignment record of the patents in suit. OBJECTIONS TO CATEGORY NO. 2: In addition to its General Objections, LML specifically objects to this deposition category to the extent that it seeks the disclosure of information protected by the attorney-client privilege, work product doctrine, or other applicable privileges or immunities. Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, LML will produce a witness, specifically Patrick Gaines, to testify regarding the topics listed above.

Dated this 13th day of May, 2005 /s/ Richard K. Herrmann Richard K. Herrmann #405 MORRIS JAMES HITCHENS & WILLIAMS LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, 10th Floor Wilmington, Delaware 19801 (302) 888-6800 Russell E. Levine, P.C. Jamie H. McDole KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 200 East Randolph Drive Chicago, Illinois 60601 (312) 861-2000 Attorneys for LML Patent Corp.

4

Case 1:04-cv-00858-SLR

Document 153

Filed 05/13/2005

Page 5 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 13th day of May, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing document, PLAINTIFF LML PATENT CORP.'S OBJECTIONS TO TELECHECK SERVICES, INC.'S FIRST NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF LML PATENT CORP. PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 30(b)(6) , with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of such filing to the following: Collins J. Seitz, Jr., Esq. Francis DiGiovanni, Esq. Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP 1007 North Orange Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Richard D. Kirk, Esq. The Bayard Firm 222 Delaware Avenue, 9th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Additionally, I hereby certify that on the 13th day of May, 2005, the foregoing document was served via email on the following non-registered participants: Robert Jacobs, Esq. Mark B. Mizrahi, Esq. Belasco Jacobs & Townsley, LLP Howard Hughes Center 6100 Center Drive, Suite 630 Los Angeles, CA 90045 Mark C. Scarsi, Esq. Vision L. Winter, Esq. O'Melveny & Myers LLP 400 South Hope Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 William J. Marsden, Jr., Esq. Timothy Devlin, Esq. Fish & Richardson, P.C. 919 North Market Street, Suite 1100 Wilmington, DE 19801

/s/ Richard K. Herrmann Richard K. Herrmann (#405) Mary B. Matterer (#2696) MORRIS, JAMES, HITCHENS & WILLIAMS LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, 10th Floor Wilmington, Delaware 19801 (302) 888-6800 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff LML PATENT CORP.