Free Declaration - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 646-5 Filed 05/02/2007 Page1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 646-5 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 2 of 3
McKenna Long _
Atlanta • San Drego
&Aldr1dge....» _
Denver Ammcys at Law San Francnsco
les Angeles 1900 K Street, NW • Washington, DC 20006 W¤slrl¤gl¤¤, DC
202.4%.7500 • Fax: 202.4%.7756
Phlledelphla www.mckennalong.com Brussels
CASS W. CHRISTENSON EMAM. ADDRESS
(202) 496-7218 [email protected]
February 12, 2007
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Scott R. Miller, Esq.
Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz, LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3150
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Re: LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. v. Tatung, et al.; Civil Action No. 04-343 (JJF)
Dear Scott:
This responds to your letter of February 8, 2007, addressing LPL’s document production
on January 22, 2007.
In your February 8 letter, you request additional bill of materials documents from LPL.
LPL, however, does not have bills of material for LCD modules back to the relevant time period
(1997-98). LPL produced, however, a nearly three hundred page spreadsheet that provides bill
of material information for at least 1997-1998, and is responsive to several of ViewSonic’s
Document Requests. This is a comprehensive spreadsheet that includes the parts and material
information that is available from LPL. We do not understand why, after insisting that LPL
produce this information, ViewSonic now contends that this information is not what ViewSonic
wants or needs. We argued to the Special Master that bill of materials information was not
relevant and you disagreed. ViewSonic requested bill of material information for various parts
or components. This information has been produced to you in the format in which LPL
maintains it. Although we did not agree during the December 28 hearing to produce all the bill
of materials discovery sought by ViewSonic, by producing this document LPL presumably has
resolved all of ViewSonic’s document requests for such information. lf you feel that there is
some aspect of additional information that ViewSonic needs, please let us know.
You also requested another copy of the bill of materials document, specifically a "more
legible" document. We are working now to provide a better copy, if possible. With respect to
what you described as "electronic format" discovery, we are not aware of what agreement you
are referring to, or what ViewSonic document production you are referring to. We should be
able to send the replacement production on February 13, 2007.
Further, with respect to Document Request number 84, we are uncertain as to what
additional information you seek from LPL and we have objected to that request as tmclear and

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 646-5 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 3 of 3
Scott R. Miller, Esq.
February 12, 2007
Page 2
overly broad. We are awaiting the Special Master’s guidance. Also, on February 6, 2007, we
produced additional documents to ViewSonic.
Finally, you requested a copy of the l996 agreement between Digital Equipment
Corporation ("DEC”) and LG Electronics. We are not aware of any copy of that agreement
produced by LPL in the California case. If you are aware of such a copy, please let me know
immediately so that we can address it. The copy that we have available, as I informed you in my
January 22 letter, was produced by Chungwa Picture Tubes ("CPT"), in the California litigation,
and we are also aware that another third party (HP) may have produced this agreement. We are
concemed about producing a copy of a CPT document in this case that was produced subject to
the protective order in the California case, without appropriate consent or permission.
ViewSonic and Tatung have contended in this case that protected documents from the California
case are off limits in this case. As I indicated in my January 22 letter, we remain willing to
cooperate to produce the CPT copy of the DEC agreement. If you would like for us to send a
letter to CPT’s counsel in the California case as to whether we can produce CPT’s document in
this case, and if you think that such an agreement would suffice to comply with the Protective
Order in the California case, please confirm that to us.
Cass W. Christensen
CWC:ea
cc: Richard D. Kirk, Esq. (via e—mai1)
Mark Krietzman, Esq. (via e-mail)
Valerie W. Ho, Esq. (via e-mail)
Steve P. Hassid, Esq. (via e-mail)
Anne Shea Gaza, Esq. (via e-mail)
Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Esq. (via e-mail)
Tracy R. Roman, Esq. (via e-mail)
Jeffrey B. Bove, Esq. (via e-mail)
Jaclyn M. Mason, Esq. (via e-mail)
Manuel C. Nelson, Esq. (via e-mail)
James D. Heisman, Esq. (via e-mail)

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 646-5

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT D

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 646-5

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 646-5

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 3 of 3