Free Redacted Document - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF Document 108-9 Filed 03/17/2006 Page 1 of 1
` { L . ` ` Ar i eiuwi ¥5 ·;?<;.‘gg; ·i% ‘ ¤¤;iR¤nrirc.·~i 5 :1uAm
@*4% ~ v a a . e » » I - 11/a~`//1» »1// mm
§l3I§§Y£Z2E’§’¥
February 7, 2006
Via E-Mail and US. Mail
Elizabeth Brenner
Rothwell, Figg, Emst & Manbeck, P.C.
1425 K. Street, N.W., Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005
Re: Privilege Log Issues
Dear Liz,
I am responding to your letter of February 3, 2006. Regarding item I, your request for
documents relating to Maritz' advice of counsel defense that are dated after the filing of the suit, I
believe that Ben has responded to this issue already. We note that your side has refused to agree to
up—date its log to include post—litigation items.
Item 2, relating to legal advice supposedly obtained from Thompson & Coburn, apparently
refers to the mention by Mr. Shipley of his aborted suggestion that Maritz obtain a second opinion
from Thompson & Cobum. Mr. Shipley testified at page 220 of his deposition that he didn't recall
that Thompson & Cobum took any steps to render an opinion. We are not aware of any opinion
rendered by Thompson & Cobum relating to the patents-in-suit or any documents submitted to them
for that purpose. If other information comes to our attention, we will address the issue at that time.
Item 3 relates to the documents that your firm retumed at Ben's request as being
inadvertently produced. These documents are not logged pursuant to our agreement that post—suit
documents need not be logged and your side's refusal to update its own log. As to their production, I
refer you to our response to item l, above.
Item 4 relates to redacted documents. As I advised you in my letter responding to your letter
oflanuary 26, our revised privilege log dated January 23rd includes redacted documents.
We would appreciate a forthcoming response to our concems, expressed in letters by Ben
and/or myself, regarding the shortcomings of your client's revised privilege log and the withholding
of documents relevant to material nondisclosures during the prosecution ofthe patents in suit.
·· ·=.- il ,.1
P ~ tt ii sl
H . t, girl`;-vii-? ` jiijir. -I-li —“
' ' il u Iii ibid. iid Y. A- ’ t
avi VV Harlan
DWH:mag
Ex. 8

Case 1:04-cv-00360-JJF

Document 108-9

Filed 03/17/2006

Page 1 of 1