Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00360-JJF Document 217 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 1 of 2
W 2.Q‘2J§.i.. ';.)fri.?m9r2‘L.*ii.¥..-.l:.9_l§?2.@M§srl‘£T.Z2i;ll:E--.
A Arronmsvs AT Law
witmincrom, or
· THE NGETIOUYS EUHGHJQ
Rudolf {§_ {-{Lgt; 1007 North Grange Str
Partner P0. Box 2207
1EL(3O2)556_62GG Wilmington, DE 19899
For (sez) esasorz rst; {som ess em
enum; rhutz@cl>il‘a.com FAX: (302) 658 5614
navtv ro Wilmington Oftico WEB: Wwwlcbihlwm
August 25, 2006
1 By E—Fli€
The Honorable J oscph J. Farnan, Jr.
United States District Court
for the District ot` Delaware
, Rdd N. King Street
Wilmington, DE l980l
Re: Affinion Net Patents, Inc. v. Maritz Inc.
C.A. N0. 0·4»360—.FJ F
Dear Judge Famuii:
This letter is in response to the e-mail of plaintiffs counsel, Maryellen Noreilra, sent
Z directly to chambers yesterday, August 24, 2006.
In the e~1nail, Ms. Noreika requests the Court to "order Maritz to produce its
withheld documents in accordance with the Courts rulings" of July 28, 2006. However, the
Courts July 28th Order did not direct Maritz to produce anything. The Court solely
{ addressed (and denied) Aftinion‘s request for the production of Exhibits 76 and 77, which
l was the thrust ofthe motion pending betbre the Court.
Essentially this same demand was made in a letter of August 3, 2006 from plaintiffs
counsel R. Elizabeth Brenner to defense counsel David W. Harlan, to which l responded by
letter of August 15, 2006 (attached). In that letter, I noted that the Court had not issued
rulings on anything other than Exhibits 76 and 77, and further that the quoted language is
inconsistent with the fact that the opinions produced by Maritz, upon which waiver is
1 premised, are directed to norninfringement only, with one very narrow exception related to
invalidity discussed in Maritz's opposition to the motion to compel at page one (tiled March
7, 2006) (Docket No. 99). However, that narrow exception is no longer relevant because
the invalidity issues discussed relate to claims which Affinion has now removed from the
_ case.
l also pointed out to Ms. Brenner that her demand that Maritz list postditigation
eornmuiuieations on a privilege log was inconsistent with the parties' agreement that such
materials would not be logged; indeed, plaintiff has not produced such a log.
witmansrom, os wnsmncron. oc tos Aussies, ca

Case 1 :04-cv-00360-JJF Document 217 Filed 08/25/2006 Page 2 of 2
C0NN¤1..1.Y Bova Lomas. 6e Hurz l.,I..P
Honorable Joseph I. Farnarr, J r.
August 25, 2006
Page 2 of 2
For these reasons, we disagree with plaintiffs characterization ofthe Court’s July 28
order, and further disagree that the scope of waiver in this case extends beyond the issue of
infringement.
y yours,
, Rudolf E. utz
Enclosure
ec: Maryellen Noreika (via Hand Delivery)
Steven Lieberman (via Federal Express)
l

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF

Document 217

Filed 08/25/2006

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF

Document 217

Filed 08/25/2006

Page 2 of 2