222 1)mA\vA1
w ,1 N DE 19899
;i1*\gZi>1$;EiI.>1.1.|\rims; 19801
A T T O R N E Y S ?f;i;fF NEERIT/ES 1./a‘$! lilli WOR 1. i)\'·illJt·
www l>ziy;u·r1firm coin
7 2-( 'T—'0 .
\Vl
(302) 429-4208
[email protected]
June 6, 2007
The Honorable Vincent]. Poppiti
Blank Rome LLP
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: LG.Philzps LCD C0., Ltd. v. ViewSonic, C.A. N0. 04-343 JJF
Discoveg Matter 32 —— Plaintifffs Resganse
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
I write on behalf of LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPL") to respond to the Tatung
Defendants' Emergency Motion for Protective Order submitted on June 5, 2007 (Discovery
Matter 32). The motion fails to comply with the requirement of good faith efforts to resolve
discovery disputes and is contrary to Your Honor's prior instructions that any protective order
motion should be tiled timely -— not in the midst of the depositions. In any event, the Tatung
Defendants cannot show good cause for a blanket limitation on the scope of deposition topics
and the motion for protective order should be denied.
LPL respectfully submits that Your Honor should deny the Tatung Defendants' June 5,
2007 Motion for the following reasons:
1. The Tatung Defendants failed to comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and Local Rule
7.1.1, which impose a mandatory obligation to make good faith efforts to raise and resolve issues
before seeking judicial intervention. Here, the Tatung Defendants failed even to raise the
substance of their motion until a single letter transmitted via email late on the evening of June 4,
2007, just before the first deposition on the morning of June 5. The Tatung Defendants’ non-
compliance with the "meet and confer†requirement is particularly notable because Your Honor
previously admonished Defendants for similar and untimely motion practice seeking a protective
order on the eve of depositions. See Mar. 13, 2007 Tr. at 9-15, 24. Further, the motion comes
after the originally agreed dates for these depositions, after the fact discovery deadline of March
30, and contrary to the Scheduling Order's prohibition on unauthorized discovery motions. The
662046~l
Case 1 :04-cv—00343-JJF Document 684 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 2 of 4
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
THE BAYARD FIRM June 6, 2007
Page 2
motion is untimely and, as with Defendants’ prior motion for protective order, "too little, too
late."l
2. The Tatung Defendants seek to enforce a non-existent objection that was never
asserted, and thus waived. Defendant ViewSonic previously contended in this case that all
objections to deposition topics needed to be asserted before the scheduled deposition, or were
waived. The Tatung Defendants have submitted a copy of their written objections to the
deposition topics served on January 5, 2007. The date of the objections shows that the Tatung
Defendants inexcusably delayed in seeking a protective order. In addition, the Tatung
Defendants did not assert any objection seeking to limit the deposition topics to accused
products. The lack of such an objection is conspicuous and should foreclose the relief sought in
the motion, particularly as the Tatung Defendants did assert other objections to the scope of
topics (to the extent they related to non—U.S. products, for example, but not to the extent that they
related to non-accused products). See, ag., Tatung’s Objs. to Topics 1, 2, 4 (Tatung’s Ex. C at
pp. 10, l2, 15-16).2
3. The Special Master already rejected Defendants' similar previous attempt to limit the
scope of LPL's deposition topics. ln the March 13, 2007 teleconference, ViewSonic (in a motion
joined by Tatung) contended that deposition topics should be barred or curtailed. The Special
Master denied almost all aspects of the motion. Notably, during that hearing, the Defendants did
not seek to limit the scope of any topics to accused products. Further, the Special Master
declined to limit topics based on the number of products that could be implicated (see Mar. 13,
2007 Tr. at 62-66), when ViewSonic’s counsel (like Tatung now) made a generalized burden
argument. Compare Mar. 13, 2007 Tr. at 62 (ViewSonic counsel citing 230 products) and
Tatung’s June 5, 2007 Mot. at § A (referencing "hundreds of unaccused products"). LPL will
continue to focus its deposition questions on relevant issues, as LPL has done throughout this
case. Further, Tatung’s witnesses will not be burdened in preparing as the time and effort to
prepare necessarily already has been expended given that the depositions are in progress.
4. Further, there is no basis for Tatung to obtain a blanket preemption on all possible
questions not specifically related to accused products. The full scope of relevant and proper
questions is not (and could not be) addressed by Tatung’s motion. Deposition examination is a
fluid process and many relevant questions could be asked that are only partly related to accused
products, or that relate to relevant issues other than accused products. Irnposing far—reaching
limits on unasked questions would be extremely unfair to LPL and unnecessary to protect
Tatung. Certainly, Tatung's counsel did not limit the examination of LPL's deposition witnesses
I Tatung's attempt to mischaracterize the postponement of Tatung's technical depositions as resulting from LPL's
own delay is inaccurate and misplaced. Tatung's failure to provide discovery on a timely basis necessitated certain
extensions of time. Further, Tatung's mischaracterization would not excuse its lack of diligence and Tatung should
not be rewarded for its delay and inaction.
Z Tatung America served objections to the deposition topics that mirror the substance of Tatung’s objections to the
same or similar deposition topics.
662046-l
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 684 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 3 of 4
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
THE BAYARD F IRM Jima 6, 2007
Page 3
to "accused products." Nor would such a one-sided prohibition he appropriate concerning
Tatung's witnesses.3
We look forward to discussing this issue with Your Honor on the call at 2:45 p.m. EDT
this afternoon.
Respectfully submitted,
éichard D. Kirk (rkO922)
cc: Counsel as shown on the attached certificate
3 As a final point in Tatung’s motion, the Tatung Defendants vaguely reference a purported agreement among
counsel that Tatung contends should be construed to limit the scope of deposition topics. Tatung does not provide
any citation to any source concerning this purported agreement. See June 5, 2007 Mot. at Para. D. LPL disputes
Tatung’s contentions regarding this purpoited understanding.
662046-l
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 684 Filed 06/06/2007 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned counsel certifies that, on June 6, 2007, he electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send
automatic notification ofthe filing to the following:
Jeffrey B Bove, Esq. Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Esq.
James D. Heisman, Esq. Anne Shea Gaza, Esq.
Jaclyn M. Mason, Esq. Richards, Layton & Finger
Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP One Rodney Square
1007 North Orange Street P.O. Box 551
P.O. Box 2207 Wilmington, DE 19899
Wilmington, Delaware 19899-2207
The undersigned counsel further certifies that copies of` the foregoing document
were sent by email on June 6, 2007 and will be sent by hand to the above counsel on May
17, 2007, and were sent by email on June 6, 2007, and will be sent by first class mail
onMay 17, 2007, to the following non—registered participants:
Scott R. Miller, Esq. Valerie Ho, Esq.
Comiolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP Mark H. Krietzman, Esq.
355 South Grand Avenue Frank C. Merideth, Jr., Esq.
Suite 3150 Greenberg Trauii g 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 §rk922[
Richard D. Kirk
571447-1
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 684
Filed 06/06/2007
Page 1 of 4
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 684
Filed 06/06/2007
Page 2 of 4
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 684
Filed 06/06/2007
Page 3 of 4
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 684
Filed 06/06/2007
Page 4 of 4
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms