Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 77.8 kB
Pages: 3
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 716 Words, 4,421 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/7695/773-5.pdf

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 77.8 kB)


Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 773-5 Filed 08/23/2007 Page1 of 3
Exh1b1t D

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 773-5 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 2 of 3
BLAl\lK— RO/v\Etri·
connectors AT raw
Phone: (302) 425-6410
Fax: (302)428-5132
Emrrll: l’0ppI1i@BInnkRa¢ne.c0r:r
March 23, 2007
BY CM/ECF and EMAIL
Richard D. Kirk, Esquire Frederick L. Cottrell, Esquire
Ashley B. Stitzer, Esquire Anne S. Gaza, Esquire
The Bayard Firm Richards Layton & Finger
222 Delaware Ave., Suite 900 One Rodney Square
P.O. Box 25130 920 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19899 Wilmington, DE 19801
Jeffrey B. Bove, Esquire ‘
Jaclyn M. Mason, Esquire
Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP
1007 North Orange Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re; LG. Philips LCD Co., Lzal v. ViewSonic Corporation, et al.;
C.A. No. 04-343 (JJF)
Dear Counsel:
This will serve as my Report and Recommendations regarding the February 20, 2007
letter submission by Tatung Company and Tatung Company of America, Inc. (collectively,
"Tatung"), together with the related submissions of the parties and the discussion held on the
record during the March 8, 2007 discovery conference. Tatung's submission (i) raises concerns
as to whether counsel for LG. Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPL") is in compliance with the
Protective Order entered in this case, and (ii) seeks relief from any requirement that Tatung
continue to produce confidential information.
The Special Master has reviewed in camera certain documents identified by Tatung from
LPL's Privilege Log to ascertain whether there is any indicia that confidential information
produced to LPL's trial team pursuant to the Protective Order in this case has been shared with
LPL's patent prosecution counsel. The documents identified by Tatung for review, and inspected
by the Special Master in camera, are: Privilege Log Document Nos. 58-60, 62-69, 120, 311,
312, 315, 319-321, 341-342, 344-346, 351, 361-363, 368, 372-376, 378, 390-395, 397-398, 411,
426 and 430-431.
ln connection with this review, the Special Master has also reviewed the declarations of
LPL counsel Rebecca Rudich and Matthew Bailey, both senior partners at the law firm of
McKenna Long & Aldridge, as well as the declarations of associate attorneys Derek Auito,
Michael Angert and Jennifer Davis of the same law firm.
Chase Manhattan Centre 1201 Market Street Suite 800 Wilmington, DK 19801
www.Blanl Delaware • Florida • New Jersey • New York • Ohio • Pennsylvania • Washington, DC • Hong Kong

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 773-5 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 3 of 3
Richard D. Kirk, Esquire B L A N K — 50,gH/gg ,§,,ii5
Ashley B. Stitzer, Esquire
Frederick L. Cottrell, Esquire
Anne S. Gaza, Esquire
Jeffrey B. Bove, Esquire
Jaclyn M. Mason, Esquire
March 23, 2007
Page 2
These declarations specifically aver that appropriate procedures are in place at the law
firm of McKenna Long & Aldridge (hereafter "MLA") to ensure that no MLA attorney who
prosecutes patents relating to flat panel display technology either receives or reviews confidential
information produced in the present litigation. Briefly summarized, those procedures require all
attorneys to review and comply with the Protective Order in this case by, among other things,
keeping litigation and patent prosecution files separate and by password protecting access to the
Summation software used in the litigation.
Based on the Special Master's careful in camera review of each of the documents
identified from LPL's Privilege Log, including the attachments and enclosures thereto, the
Special Master concludes that there is no evidence whatsoever that LPL's counsel has violated
the Protective Order entered in this case.
Finding no violation of the Protective Order, the Special Master further concludes that
Tatung should immediately resume production of its information responsive to discovery in this
case.
As a final matter, the Special Master concludes that there is no justification for shifting
the costs associated with the Special Master's consideration of this matter and, therefore, each
party shall bear its own costs.
.. .....
23'd day of March, 2007 Vincent J. A No. 100614)
Special Master

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 773-5

Filed 08/23/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 773-5

Filed 08/23/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 773-5

Filed 08/23/2007

Page 3 of 3