Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:O4—cv—OO343-JJF Document 621 Filed O4/O9/2007 Page 1 of 4
A ..4 CONNOLLY BOVE LODGE 84 HUTZ LLP
at Arroamzvs AT LAW
wmvumarom, nz
. The Nemours Buildin
g;?T;S D. Helsman 1007 North Orange Si.
‘ m. (302) 888-5216 r ‘ RO- BOX 2207
[email protected] WUmi¤BY¤¤» DE 19899
rm.: (302) 658 9141
mx: (302) 658 5614
9, WEB; www.cb!h.com
Via Email and Hand-Delivery
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
_ Blank Rome LLP
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
_ Re: LG.Philqrs LCD Co., Ltd. v. ViewSonic Corporation, et al.
USDC Case No. 04-343 JJF
Dear Special Master Poppiti: _
LPL’s motion to compel a deposition schedule for the remaining ViewSonic witnesses is
surprising. ViewSonic was under the distinct impression that all issues were being resolved
informally. In fact, ViewSonic provided dates for Q1 of the witnesses identified in the motion
and also notified LPL’s counsel that any motion on this issue would be premature. See LPL’s
7.1.1 Cert., Ex. 8 & 10. LPL admits that an informal resolution is still being worked out between
__ the parties. See LPL’s Motion at p. 3. The motion should be dismissed for that reason alone.
4 Although LPL does not say so, the only issue seems to be whether four witnesses based
in Taiwan must be brought to Los Angeles for deposition. The motion identifies 12 witnesses
with dates to be compelled for deposition. Just so the issue is clear, ViewSonic is not aware that
V any dispute exists regarding Mr. Jue, Ms. Wang, Ms. Liu, or Mr. Ranucci. The dates in the
motion are the dates ViewSonic provided to LPL. See LPL’s 7.1.1 Cert., Ex. 8.
Mr. Jue and Ms. Wang were originally scheduled to be deposed on March 13 and 24,
respectively. But when ViewSonic pointed out that the issue of OEM documents remained open,
_ LPL agreedmto reschedule his deposition for April for reasons of efficiency. LPL’s counsel then
requested that ViewSonic postpone the deposition of Ms. Wang as a courtesy to counsel who had
traveled from D.C. Naturally, ViewSonic’s counsel agreed. See Ex..A. Immediately thereafter,
LPL’s counsel also requested that ViewSonic agree to postpone the depositions of eight other
witnesses whose depositions were noticed on March 9 to take place the last week of March.} See `
Ex. B. ViewSonic agreed to this request provided that LPL would agree to postpone
ViewSonic’s remaining two witnesses (Ms. Liu and Mr. Ranucci) until the same time period for
efficiency purposes. LPL reluctantly agreed. Accordingly, ViewSonic provided LPL with the
_ following dates for each of its remaining witnesses:
I Those witnesses are Ms. Yip, Mr. Nguyen, Mr. Willey, Mr. Lee, Mr. Hsiao, Mr. T. Huang, Mr. »
Sung, and Mr. Zapka.
wmvumerow, mz wAsmNoroN, nc tos Aussies, CA

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 621 Filed O4/O9/2007 Page 2 of 4
W CONNOLLY Bova: LODGE at 1-1uTz LLP
A ATTORNEYS AT LAW
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
April 9, 2007
Page 2
Mr. Jue —- April 24 Mr. Nguyen —- May 3 Mr. Hsiao —~ May 7-14 ,
Ms. Wang -— April 25 Mr. Willey — May 4 Mr. T. Huang -— May 7-14
Ms. Liu -— April 25 Ms. Hip — May 7 Mr. Sung —- May 7-14
Mr. Ranucci — April 26 Mr. Lee —- May 7-14
s
Because Mssrs. Lee, Hsiao, Huang, and Sung are in Taiwan, ViewSonic requested their l
depositions be taken in Taiwan. These four Taiwanese witnesses are part of the newly-noticed
witnesses. They were added to ViewSonic’s Initial Disclosures on February 15, 2007, solely
because LPL amended its Inteirogatory Response to accuse new products of infringement. See I
LPL’s 7.1.1 Cert., Ex. 2 at 85:17-86:11. These individuals have knowledge about one or more of
those newly accused products. Rather than praising ViewSonic for abiding by its obligations to
supplement disclosures, LPL would have the Special Master believe that some nefarious conduct
has occurred. That is simply not the case. Indeed, it is precisely because ViewSonic takes its
discovery obligations seriously that ViewSonic agreed to accommodate LPL’s request to
postpone the depositions of these witnesses to some time in April. See LPL’s 7.1.1 Cert., Ex. 6, i
p.1 & Ex. 8.
ViewSonic has secured dates for the Taiwanese witnesses and for Ms. Liu and Ms. Yip,
despite LPL stating that it does not know whether it even intends to depose them. See LPL’s
7.1.1 Cert., Ex. 6, p.2., Ex. 10, & Ex. ll. LPL argues that its decision to depose these witnesses
depends on whether ViewSonic will call them at trial. ViewSonic has told LPL that, "While
ViewSonic does not know the type of nature of the information LPL intends to present at trial,
ViewSonic does not presently plan to call any of these individuals as trial witnesses in this case. I
Were it to call a witness from this list, my guess is that the person most likely to be called would
be Mr. Willey though, as indicated above, ViewSonic has no present plans to call Mr. Willey as
a witness." See LPL’s 7.1.1 Cert., Ex. 8, p.l. LPL complained that this representation was
insufficient, yet it is as firm a representation as LPL made to Your Honor and ViewSonic to
A secure ViewSonic’s agreement not to depose Mr. Ho Lee, to wit: LPL "does not intend to call
Mr. Lee as part of its case at trial.” See Ex. C. The truth is, LPL’s decision whether to depose
these witnesses has nothing to do with whether ViewSonic will call them at trial. Rather, LPL ·
will base its decision on whether it gets the information it needs from Mr. Jue and Ms. Wang.
See LPL’s 7.1.1 Cert., Ex. 6, p.1. That is why LPL insists upon waiting until after their
depositions in April before it will tell ViewSonic if it will depose these other witnesses. See A
LPL’s 7.1.1 Cert., Ex. 6, p.1.
The significance of this delay cannot be understated. ViewSonic has made great efforts
to schedule these depositions. Now LPL wants the Special Master to order ViewSonic to bear
the additional burden of bringing these witnesses from Taiwan before LPL even commits to
taking their deposition. As the Court knows, it is a difficult process to secure visas and I
l
l
l
l

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 621 Filed O4/O9/2007 Page 3 of 4
V U CONNOLLY Bova LODGE ar 1-1uTz LLP
A ATTORNEYS AT LAW
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
_ April 9, 2007
Page 3
coordinate travel. Furthermore, it means ViewSonic must expend the time and cost to prepare
these witnesses for depositions that LPL might not take.2
LPL’s argument that ViewSonic previously agreed its witnesses would be deposed in Los
Angeles suffers from one simple flaw. That agreement- made January 11, 2007 — related to the
witnesses that LPL had already noticed for deposition, none of whom were in Taiwan. See
‘ LPL’s 7.1.1 Cert., Ex. 4. Location simply was not an issue then. As such, that agreement cannot
be interpreted as applying to several later-noticed Taiwanese witnesses. And even if it could, the
burden LPL seeks to impose on ViewSonic to bring these witnesses to the United States far
outweighs any benefit to LPL, who will not even decide if it wants to depose these witnesses.
The last witness in LPL’s motion is Mr. Zapka who is no longer employed by l
ViewSonic. He provided a declaration in this case on September 10, 2004 regarding the
ViewSonic VPA 138 and VP140, which products are potential prior art to the asserted patents.
During 1997-98 he was a product engineer responsible for these products. As such, he had
general personal knowledge about their structure and the time periods when they were sold.
These products were first sold in 1997, with the last version of the VPAl38 sold in 2001 and the
last version of the VP140 sold in.2004. Because ViewSonic no longer sells these products, no
supposed successor to Mr. Zapka will have the personal knowledge he had about the products.
Mr. Zapka was identified in ViewSonic’s original Initial Disclosure in July 2005. After LPL
noticed his deposition in December 2006, ViewSonic promptly notified LPL that he was no
longer an employee. On February 15, 2007, ViewSonic also explained to LPL that Mr. Zapka
held many positions while at ViewSonic, and thus, many people took over his responsibilities.
‘ See LPL’s 7.1.1 Cert., Ex. 1. Those people were all identified in that February 15th letter, as well
as in ViewSonic’s Supplemental Initial Disclosures, and have also been offered for deposition.
See id; see also, LPL’s 7.1.1 Cert., Ex. 2 at 88:5-17. Notwithstanding the above, LPL served the
disputed notice to "Mike Zapka or his successor" without further identification. Put simply, LPL
should have subpoenaed Mike Zapka to obtain his testimony.
In sum, ViewSonic respectfully requests that the Court either dismiss this motion as
premature because LPL admits it did not complete the meet and confer process, or in the
alternative, confirm the dates for deposition ViewSonic offered for these witnesses and order that
the depositions of the Taiwanese witnesses be taken in Taiwan. Should the Court instead order
that these witnesses be deposed in Los Angeles, ViewSonic respectfully requests that ViewSonic
be given leave to file any necessary sanctions motions, should, for example, LPL decide not to
depose these witnesses after their flights have been secured.
2 ViewSonic can only hope that if LPL decides at the last minute not to depose these witnesses, the Special Master
will award ViewSonic its costs incurred in securing the Taiwanese witnesses’ travel to Los Angeles, as well as the
attorneys’ fees ViewSonic spent in unnecessarily preparing each of these six witnesses for deposition.

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 621 Filed O4/O9/2007 Page 4 of 4
r NNOLLY Bova LODGE ar HuTz LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW *
· The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
April 9, 2007
Page 4
Respectiiilly submitted,
/s/ James D. Heisman
James D. Heisman
cc: Gaspare J. Bono, Esq.
Cass W. Christensen, Esq.
_ Rel S. Ambrozy, Esq.
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq.
Cormac T. Connor, Esq.
Richard D. Kirk, Esq.
Ashley B. Stitzer, Esq.
Mark H. Krietzman, Esq.
Valerie W. Ho, Esq.
Steve P. Hassid, Esq.
Anne Shea Gaza, Esq.
Frederick L. Cottrell lll, Esq.
Tracy R. Roman, Esq.
Jeffrey B. Bove, Esq.
Jaclyn M. Mason, Esq.
James D. Heisman, Esq.
531832/70104*4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 621

Filed 04/09/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 621

Filed 04/09/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 621

Filed 04/09/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 621

Filed 04/09/2007

Page 4 of 4