.222 l)ia1.,xw»xi
\Vll.Mli\IG'1ON, DE 19899
Z.u· Cinnf Fon l)lll\Ilil1`\Z 19:401
A T T O R N E Y S l‘JiE11!T>2S lurk"! fliifvii lfétiiii iJ‘.'§llJl2
www l?Ll)'i1l'&ll`1I`l11 com
:302-655-5000
W/l
[email protected]
September 4, 2007
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
Blank Rome LLP
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: LG.Philips LCD C0., Ltd. v. ViewSonic, C.A. N0. 04-343 JJF
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
On behalf of LPL, I respectfully write to state briefly the basis of several comments and
concerns that LPL has expressed regarding the proposed form of Report and Recommendation
related to a further deposition of LPL that was sent to you by ViewSonic’s counsel earlier today.
The submission from ViewSonic did not include LPL’s comments. I am attaching a redlined
version of ViewSonic’s proposal that shows the additions and deletions LPL proposed but that
defendants rejected.
LPL's changes to paragraph 2 clarify that the rulings were made orally on the record, not
in a written report or order. The scope of document production was addressed on July 13. Also,
LPL clarifies that Your Honor did not specifically determine a scope of sample production, but
expected counsel to discuss and resolve that issue.
LPL's proposed deletion of paragraph 3 and the fourth sentence of paragraph 9 are to
avoid making incorrect "findings" suggested by ViewSonic that were not addressed in depth
during the hearings. In response to a question from Your Honor, LPL's counsel agreed that LPL
documents could, in theory, have been produced earlier in the case. LPL has not, however,
improperly withheld documents for purposes of delay, as implied by the language proposed by
ViewSonic. Indeed, as LPL has repeatedly explained to ViewSonic in discussing this proposed
report, there are many facts and circumstances bearing upon the timing of LPL's production
(including, for example, the different requests propounded at different stages of the case, the
motions and hearings related to those requests, Your Honor's determination that a ruling on
technical discovery would issue after claim construction, etc.) LPL respectfully requests an
opportunity to be heard before any "findings" on the timing of LPL's production, but this seems
unnecessary for purposes of Your Honor's present Report on a further deposition of LPL.
LPL's proposed addition to paragraph 4 recites the most relevant example of when the
issue of supplemental discovery from LPL was addressed and provides context.
669241-1
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 782 Filed O9/O4/2007 Page 2 of 3
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
THE BAYARD FIRM september 4,2007
Page 2
LPL's proposed addition to paragraph 6 simply points out another of` the grounds raised
by LPL in response to the request for further deposition.
LPL's proposed deletion in paragraph 9 is for the same reasons discussed above
concerning paragraph 3.
LPL's proposed addition to paragraph 10 is intended to provide a deadline for the
clarification of topics required by Your Honor, rather than leaving the time to Defendants
discretion.
LPL's proposed changes to paragraph 11 are to confirm the limited scope of the
deposition and Your Honor's expectation that objections could preclude responses to questions, if
beyond the scope, subject to rulings from Your Honor concerning any disputes. This is
consistent with Your Honor's statements in the August 16 hearing, when you confirmed that the
same objections and instructions would be permitted at the LPL deposition as would be
permitted at the deposition of Ms. Rudich. See, e. g., 8/ 16 Tr. at 59-60 (LPL deposition); 8/13/07
Tr. at 39 (Rudich deposition). We also attempted to make clear the limited scope of` the
deposition, consistent with Your Honor's repeated statements in prior hearings. See, e.g., 8/16
Tr. at 57-58, 78; 8/ 17 Tr. at 17, 25-26. Notably, in all prior drafts until late this afternoon,
ViewSonic objected to putting any limitation in the Report limiting the scope of the deposition,
and LPL is thus concerned that further disputes could arise without a proper limitation in the
report.
LPL's proposed changes in the WHEREFORE clauses are intended to reserve all of LPL's
rights and objections, consistent with the record and LPL's position. Also, LPL's submission on
August 21, 2007 confirmed that, while reserving its rights and objections, LPL would not contest
the timing and dates, with any deposition proceeding at LPL's counsel's office in Washington.
Defendants did not object to this location until August 31, when they first proposed to change
that location. LPL believes that it would be appropriate to compromise on the logistical issues ——
scheduling, duration, and location of any supplemental deposition.
Respectfully submitted,
V er in [ .
rltt
Richard D. Kirk (rk0922)
cc: Counsel as shown on the attached certificate
6592414
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 782 Filed O9/O4/2007 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned counsel certifies that, on September 4, 2007, he electronically
filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send
automatic notification of the filing to the following:
Jeffrey B Bove, Esq. Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Esq.
James D. Heisman, Esq. Anne Shea Gaza, Esq.
Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP Richards, Layton & Finger
1007 North Orange Street One Rodney Square
P.O. Box 2207 P.O. Box 551
Wilmington, Delaware 19899-2207 Wilmington, DE 19899
The undersigned counsel further certifies that copies of the foregoing document
were sent by email and by hand on September 4, 2007 to the above counsel and were sent
by email and by U.S. Mail on September 4, 2007 to the following non-registered
participants:
Scott R. Miller, Esq. Valerie Ho, Esq.
Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP Mark H. Krietzman, Esq.
333 South Grand Avenue Frank C. Meiideth, Jr., Esq.
Suite 2300 Greenberg Traurig LLP
Los Angeles, CA 90071 2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400E
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Tracy Roman, Esq.
Raskin Peter Rubin & Simon LLP
1801 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
/s/ Richard D. Kirk grk0922)
Richard D. Kirk
571447-l
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 782
Filed 09/04/2007
Page 1 of 3
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 782
Filed 09/04/2007
Page 2 of 3
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 782
Filed 09/04/2007
Page 3 of 3
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms