Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 682 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 1 of 3
Fticaiaraos, LAYTGN St Finesse
A PNOFESSEONAI. AEBDCIATFON
Ons: Rommzv Sczunnz
QED Norma Kino Srnesrr
ANNE SHEA eau Witmiwerow, DELAWARE reason Dl;;°;§;*{_l;;”g§R
anew ee:-vvoo G,zA@,,,L, COM
FM tzaoai esswvo:
WWW.RLF.COM
June 5, 2007
EMERGENCY MOTION
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
& HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
BLANK. ROME LL.?
Chase Manhattan Center
l20l Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE l980l
Re: LGF/rilips LCD C0., Ltd. v. ViewSonic Coigvomticu et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. 04-343 JJF
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
Tatung Company and Tatung Company of America (the "Tatung Det`endants") hereby move for
a protective order limiting the scope of the depositions and the Rule 30(b)(6) topics noticed by
LG. Philips LCD C0., Ltd. ("LPL") to the accused products identified in LPL’s interrogatory
responses. Tatung moves pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which
authorizes the Court to protect against undue burden, expense, and oppression by limiting the
scope of discovery.
On December 5, 2006, LPL served Rule 30(b)(6) notices of deposition on the Tatung
Defendants. (See Exhs. A & B.) Some of the deposition topics are directed to the assembly and
structure of "visual display products? Specifically, the topics seek information regarding all
"visual display products" made, sold, offered for sale or imported by the Tatung Defendants.
The Tatung Defendants served their objections to LPL’s notices on January 5, 2007. (See Exhs.
C & D.)
The Tatung Defendants designated certain witnesses to testify regarding the assemblydelated
topics. The depositions originally were scheduled to take place in March 2007. Shortly before
the depositions were scheduled to start, LPL requested and obtained a postponement of the
depositions on the grounds that it needed additional time to evaluate the Tatung I)efendants’
technical documents and to identity additional accused products. After several continuations, the
parties tinally agreed to schedule the depositions for this week. Peter Farzin, Tatung America’s
Rule 30(b)(6) witness on the asseinblyurelated topics (among others), is scheduled to be deposed
R.t.r1-mesa?-1

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 682 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 2 of 3
Special Master Poppiti
June 5, 2007
Page 2
on June 5, 2007. Vincent Liu, Tatung’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness on similar topics, is scheduled to
be deposed on June 6 and 7. Jamie Yang, another Tatung witness, is scheduled to be deposed on
June 8.
On June -4, 2007, the Tatung Defendants asked LPL to confirm that the scope of these
depositions will be limited to the accused products identihed in Ll"I..’s interrogatory responses.
LPL refused to provide such confirmation, thereby necessitating the filing of this motion. For
the reasons set forth below, the Tatung Defendants respectfully request that Your Honor issue a
Protective Order limiting the scope of the depositions to products that have been accused of
intiingement by LPL.
A. Discovery Regarding Hundreds Of Unaccused Products Is Burdensome And
Unnecessary Because LPL Cannot Identify Any More Accused Products.
The Tatung Defendants have produced assembly drawings, CAD drawings and work instructions
relating to hundreds of products. LPI., requested and obtained multiple extensions of time to
evaluate these technical documents, to purchase and inspect certain products and to provide a
definitive list of accused products. Your Honor set a deadline of May 4, 2007 for LPI., to
identify all accused products. In April and May 2007, LPI. supplemented its interroatory
responses to accuse over 200 additional products. LPL already has provided its definitive list of
accused products. LPl.’s deadline to provide the final and deiinitive list has now passed. Any
discovery regarding unaccused products at this point is unnecessarily burdensome, not
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and will constitute a
complete waste of time because LPL simply cannot accuse any more products. Requiring the
Tatung Defendants to prepare their witnesses on hundreds of unaccused products is unreasonable
and exceedingly burdensome.
B. LPL’s Request For An Extension Of Time To Identify Additional Accused Products
Was Denied By The Special Master.
After granting LPL multiple extensions of time, Your Honor had set May 4, 2007 as the deadline
for LPL to provide a final and definitive list of accused products. At the hearing before Your
Honor on May 4, 2007, LPI., again requested an extension until May 30, 2007 on the basis that it
might learn of additional accused products based on the ongoing third party discovery. See
Transcript at 4.3:546:3. Tatung opposed that request on the grounds that third party discovery
was limited precisely to accused products. Your Honor agreed and refused to extend the
deadline. See Transcript at 46:444.
C. The Depositions Were Postponed Multiple Times Because LPL Wanted A Complete
List Of Accused Products Prior To The Depositions.
The depositions of the Tatung Defendants’ technical witnesses originally were scheduled for
March 2007.. Tatung’s witnesses had traveled to the United States from Taiwan and were ready
arr 1 -3 1 cass?-1

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 682 Filed 06/05/2007 Page 3 of 3
Special Master Pcppiti
June 5, 2007
Page 3
to testify when LPI., asked for a postponement of the depositions. LPL claimed that it needed
more time to study technical drawings produced by Tatung in order to compile a definitive list of
accused products. l`atung’s witnesses were forced to malce a second trip to the United States at
great expense to Tatung.
Because the premise for postponing the depositions was that LPL, wanted to have a definitive list
of accused products prior to deposing the Tatung Defendants’ technical witnesses, the Tatung
Det`endants’ understanding was that the scope of the depositions necessarily will be limited to the
accused products identiiied by LPL.
D. The Parties Agreed That Additional Discovery Would Be Limited To The Accused
Products.
ln the fall of 2006, the parties agreed that the Tatung Defendants would identify all of their
display products and produce technical drawings for these products sufficient for LPL to conduct
an infringement analysis. ln turn, LPL agreed that it would provide a definitive list of accused
products and that additional discovery would be limited to those products. Consistent with this
agreement, the Tatung Defendants have supplemented their discovery responses and have agreed
to provide further supplementations relating to the accused products recently identified by LPL.
Since the parties have operated under this agreement which limits additional discovery to the
accused products, LPL at this late stage should not be allowed to delve into matters regarding
unaccused products that have absolutely no relevance in this case.
Accordingly, the Tatung Defendants respectfully request that Your Honor limit the scope of
depositions and Rule 30(b)(6) topics noticed by LPI., to the accused products identitied in LPL’s
interrogatory responses.
Respectfully submitted,
Anne Shea Gaza { l
(#4093)
ASG/afg
Enclosures
cc: Richard D. Kirk, Esquire (e—niail)
Jeffrey B. Bove, Esquire (e-mail)
Daniel G. Jarcho, Esquire (_e-mail)
Cormac T. Connor, Esquire (e-mail)
Lori Brzezynski, Esquire (e—mail)
Tracy R. Roman, Esquire (e—mail)
Scott R. Miller, Esquire (email)
at r 1-3 nccsziei

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 682

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 682

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 682

Filed 06/05/2007

Page 3 of 3