Rica-amos, t..Av*rc:>r~r & Finesse
A PROFESEEONAL ASSOCIATEON
Owe Ftcouszv $CJUAF2£
920 NORTH KING STREET Dinner om. NUMBER
ANNE 5**5* GMA Witmiwcsrcn, DELAWARE react 30265 ,7539
tsoai es.=si»77¤0 oAzA@»=u.»= com
FM czoai een-vvoi
WWWlRLF..CCM
May l0, 2007
VLA ELECTRONIC MAIL & HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
BLANK ROME LLP
Chase Manhattan Center
i20l Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE l9S0l
Re: LG.Phi/ips LCD Co., Ltd v. ViewSonic Corporation et ul., C.A. No. 04-343 JIF
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
The Tatung Defendants submit this supplemental brief in response to Plaintiff LG. Philips LCD Co.,
L.td.’s supplemental brief regarding its motion to compel production of documents tiled on March 30, 2007,
LPl..’s supplemental brief is based entirely on mischaracterizing the parties’ prior agreements regarding
discovery and mischaracterizing the evidence. Simply put, the documents that Tatung has agreed to produce
already have been provided to LPI,. to the extent that responsive documents can be located.
LPL suggests in its supplemental brief that Tatung recently reversed position by limiting its document
production to include only documents that refer to the accused products. That is not true. Tatung’s position
always has been that discovery should be limited to the accused products. LPI,. has not, and cannot, cite to any
written agreement or correspondence that suggests otherwise. Mr. Merideth did state at the January 22, 2007
hearin g that "to the extent that there are general corresporiderrce where sales and marketing in the ihzired States
genera//y, for example, was discussed without any particular model number being referenced, that, you know, I
accepted you are entitled to discovery of tl1at." (Exh., 2 to LPL’s Supplemental Brief (emphasis added).) The
agreement was to produce any correspondence regarding general sales and marketing in the United States
without any reference to speciiic products, and those documents were produced, However, that does not mean
that LPI,. is entitled to all documents regarding all Tatung products, regardless of whether the products have
been accused or not. Under LPL’s untenable position, all documents could potentially relate to "sales and
mar·l
letter from Ho to Christensen at Exh. t hereto.) That position was made clear to LPL in Ms.. Ho’s April 4, 2007
letter and in Tatung’s opposition to I..i’L’s motion to compel. Tatung has performed a diligent search and has
been unable to locate any responsive trip reports, Moreover, at the April l3, 2007 hearing, LPL represented that
its motion to compel was limited to documents that relate to the accused products in view of the Special
Master’s ruling limiting non—technical discovery. LPL is now attempting to revisit this agreement and to
perform an end run around the Special Master’s ruling,
Presentation Materials: Despite L.PL’s attempt to create a dispute by complaining that Tatung did not produce a
presentation document attached as Exhibit 6 to LPl.’s supplemental brietQ this is a non—issue. While LPL points
to HP58627 as evidence that the presentation was about certain accused products, I~IP’s representative, who was
deposed on May 9, 2007, testified that the meeting at issue l) probably took place in Taiwan or China and not
at F t-3 l=l9539·i
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 660 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 2 of 2
Special Master Poppiti
May I0, .2007
Page 2
the United States; 2) was about promoting other products; and 3) HP58627 merely identities two models on
what is referred to as a roadmap and the roadmap identifies those products as being older models or are current
models that are being. F urther, neither the presentation materials nor the roadmap are not relevant to LPL’s
inducement theory because LPL does not contend that HP ever purchased the two models referenced on the
roadmap. Accordingly, the presentation is neither relevant nor admissible and Tatung has no obligation to
produce it,
Correspondence with Wal-Mart: LPI., has received the sought after correspondence with Wal—l\/lart relating to
the accused products. Tatung Science and Technology, lrrc.("TSTI"), a third party subpoenaed by LPL, has
produced approximately l2 boxes of documents including correspondence with Wal—Mart and correspondence
with Tatung regarding Wal—Mart. Based on these documents, LPI., should understand that it is TST1, and not
Tatung, that has regular contacts with Wal—l\/tart. In any event, LPL has the information it claims it needs.
Correspondence with HP regarding MDF Incentives: LPL has been informed on multiple occasions that iatung
has produced all ofthe correspondence with HP it could locate regarding the accused HP products. While Mr.
Ho testified that sometimes “MDF incentives†were provided, LPL never asked whether such incentives were
provided for the accused products. Therefore, LPl..’s assumption that there must be correspondence regarding
“l\/IDF incentives" for the accused HP products is unfounded.
Clarifications Sought By LPL: LPI, has not shown why it needs or is entitled to any further clarifications,
especially when it failed to ask such questions at the appropriate depositions With respect to the document
produced by Tatung that identities internal customer numbers for U.S. customers, Tatung explained in its
opposition to LPL’s motion to compel that this information is irrelevant because it does not shed light on which
U.S. customers purchased the accused products (information that LPL already has) or which US customer
purchased products for the U.S. market. In an effort to be cooperative, Tatung agreed to provide these
customers numbers to LPL. Tatung never agreed, however, to subject itself to nevenendirrg questions regarding
its document production. With respect to Mr. Shih’s declaration, Your Honor already has resolved all issues
relating to Mr, Shih’s deposition and declaration. Moreover, Mr, Shih’s declaration simply was not the subiect
of LPL’s motion to compel production of documents.
Suolementations: On May 4, 2.007, LPL identified a number of additional accused products. lt is simply
unreasonable for LPL to demand supplementations regarding these products by May 22, 2007 when it knows the
parties will be devoting their attention to Mcrrkrrrarr reply briefs and the Mcrr·/mann hearingduring this time. In
addition, Tatung needs more time to search for responsive documents relating to the newly accused products
Accordingly, Tatung proposes that supplementation be completed by June 29, 2007.
Respectfully submitted,
620/rmt dim lim
Anne Shea Gaza (#4093) W.
cc: Clerk of Court (CM/ECF tiling)
Richard D. l<,irl·:, Esquire (e-mail)
Jeffrey B. Bove, Esquire (e~mail)
Daniel G. larcho, Esquire (e-mail)
Cormac T. Connor, Esquire (e-mail)
Lora Brzezyrrski, Esquire (e-mail)
Tracy R. Roman, Esquire (e~mail)
Scott R. l\/iiller, Esquire (e-mail)
arr l-3149539-l
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 660
Filed 05/10/2007
Page 1 of 2
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 660
Filed 05/10/2007
Page 2 of 2
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms