22.2 DlS1.A\\rZ»\1{l€ Avmwr, 8011*1; 900
PO. Box 25150
\Y/ll,l\11NG`1`()N, DE 19899
wv Zur (Z<>1>r 1% nz 1)IiI.l\1'1(1I.~J 19801
A T· VT O R N E Y S $V1E1%lT!\S 1./ai`.; 11111015
soo-655-$000
(Fax) $(12-658-6.595
\Wmr1;1<’s Dll11*(C`1` Acxxrss
(302) 429-4208
rl
VIA E-MArL & HAND Dnrrvmw
The Honorable Vincent]. Poppiti
Blank Rome LLP
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: LG.Philq2s LCD C0., Ltd v. ViewSonic Corporation, et al.;
U.S. District Court Case N0. 04-343 JJF
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
Plaintiff LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.’s ("LPL") respectfully requests that Your Honor
approve the schedule for depositions of Defendant ViewSonic Corporation’s ("ViewSonic")
remaining witnesses. LPL and ViewSonic had agreed to submit a joint deposition schedule
today. Because ViewSonic has not confirmed or agreed to dates and locations, however, LPL
submits this request.
On February 15, 2007, ViewSonic disclosed the names of nine new witnesses that
ViewSonic claimed to have knowledge about the issues in this case.] (See Exhibit 1, Letter from
S. Miller.) ln the parties’ joint status report of February 26, 2007 and again during the hearing
on March 2, 2007, LPL advised Your Honor that, because of the late disclosure and the
impending close of discovery deadline, LPL may need additional time to depose the new
witnesses. (See id.; Exhibit 3, Letter from R. Kirk at 5.) Your Honor detennined that the issue
was not yet ripe for review but, in doing so, secured a commitment from ViewSonic that "there
is going to be an opportunity to accommodate the appropriate deposition of those newly
identified witnesses." (Ex. 2 at 86:7-11.)
LPL served deposition notices for eight of the nine newly-identified witnesses on March
9, 2007. (See D.l. 563-70.) LPL served the ninth notice on March 20. (See D.1. 594.) Together,
the deposition notices set all nine of the depositions to occur between March 26-30, 2007. (See
D.l. 563-70 & 594.) All nine notices clearly stated that each deposition would take place at
I ViewSonic claimed that this new disclosure was the result of receiving notice from LPL of additional ViewSonic
products that LPL was accusing of infringing the Patents—in-Suit. (See, e. g., Exhibit 2, Mar. 2, 2007 Hr’ g Tr. at
81:21-89:6.)
Case 1:04-cv—OO343-JJF Document 610 Filed O3/30/2007 Page 2 of 4
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
THE BAYARD FIRM March 30, 2007
Page 2
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP’s offices in Los Angeles, CA. (See ia'.) LPL noticed these
depositions for Los Angeles because, long before the notices were served, the parties had agreed
that all depositions of the Defendants’ witnesses would be held in Los Angeles, CA, in the
offices of LPL’s counsel. (See, eg., Exhibit 4, Letter from R. Kirk at l (noting agreement that
all Defendants’ depositions would occur in Los Angeles); Exhibit 5, Letter fiom R. Kirk at l
(Feb. 23, 2007) (same).)
As the dates of the depositions neared, the parties discussed whether to postpone any or
all of them. Generally, LPL informed ViewSonic that LPL would be amenable to postponing the
depositions, but only if, among other conditions, ViewSonic first agreed to: (1) reschedule each
deposition sometime between April 23 and May 14; and (2) set a final schedule by March 30,
2007, so that the parties could inform Your Honor today of the final deposition schedule.2 (See
Exhibits 6-7, E—mails among C. Christenson, C. Connor, S. Miller and T. Roman (Mar. 22-23,
2007).) Notably, on the morning of March 23, ViewSonic specifically agreed that "[w]e will be
able to have this finalized by Friday [March 30] as you suggest." (Ex. 7 at 3.) Furthermore, far
from insisting that any of the depositions would have to occur anywhere but in Los Angeles, on
March 22 ViewSonic’s counsel also confirmed that, "while I have not yet checked for dates with
the witnesses located outside the US during this period, I am not aware of any reason why these
depositions, should they go forward, would not be completed by May I3 .... " (Ex. 6 at 2.) Based
on ViewSonic’s representations on March 22 and 23, LPL agreed on the afternoon of March 23
to postpone all nine of the depositions that were scheduled for the week of March 26. (See Ex. 7
at l; Exhibit 9, Letter from C. Connor (Mar. 29, 2007); Exhibit ll, Email from C. Connor (Mar.
30, 2007).)
It was not until the afternoon of March 28, 2007 that ViewSonic asserted for the first time
that LPL should travel to Taiwan to depose four witnesses. (See Exhibit 8, Letter from S. Miller
at 2.) ViewSonic makes this unilateral demand despite the fact that, on January ll, 2007,
ViewSonic joined in a submission to Your Honor which stated that "counsel for all parties are
agreeable to having the depositions. .. of ViewSonic’s and 'l`atung’s witnesses take place in Los
Angeles, CA at the offices of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP." (Ex. 4 at l (emphasis added).)
Further, ViewSonic’s recent claim that it only agreed to make "2—3 max" of its witnesses
available for deposition in Los Angeles also overlooks the fact that it agreed to make all sb: of
the witnesses of which LPL was then aware available for deposition in Los Angeles. (Compare
Ex. 8 at 2 (claiming only 2-3 witnesses would appear in Los Angeles) with Ex. 5 at l (providing
schedule for all ViewSonic witnesses and noting that "[a]ll of the depositions will occur at the
Los Angeles office of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP"); see also Exhibit l0, Letter from S.
Miller (refusing to propose alternatives or agree to dates proposed in Ex. 9 letter).)
Z LPL also requested that ViewSonic clarify whether any of its witnesses would not be called to testify at trial
because LPL would then agree not to take depositions of those witnesses. ViewSonic has withdrawn one name, but
has not clarified whether any of the other eight witnesses will or will not be called to testify at trial. (See Ex. 10.) If
ViewSonic does confirm that any additional witnesses will not testify at trial, then LPL should be able to agree not
to take depositions of those witnesses. The only exception is that LPL will need to depose Mr. Willey and Mr. Lee.
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 610 Filed O3/30/2007 Page 3 of 4
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
THE BAYARD FIRM March 30, mov
Page 3
ViewSonic’s failure to work with LPL to tinalize deposition dates by March 30, 2007 is
compounded by a repudiation of the parties’ agreement on deposition locations. Accordingly,
LPL asks that the Special Master approve the deposition schedule presented below, which
pertains to all of ViewSonic’s remaining witnesses and which is the same schedule that LPL
presented to ViewSonic on March 29 and which is based on the ranges of dates that ViewSonic
had provided to LPL in its March 28 letter. (See Exs. 8-9 & 1 1.)
Proposed Schedule for Deposition of ViewSonic Witnesses:
Mr. Jue - April 24 Mr. Nguyen (technical) — May 3
Ms. Wang — April 25 Mr. Willey (business/technical) — May 4
Ms. Liu - April 25 Mr. Lee (technical) — May 8
Mr. Ranucci — April 26 Mr. Hsiao (technical) - May 9
Ms. Yip (business) — April 27 Mr. T. Huang (technical) - May 10
Mr. Zapka (or successor) — May 2 Mr. Sung (technical) — May ll
LPL respectfully requests that Your Honor order ViewSonic to make each of the
witnesses identified above available for depositions at McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP’s offices
in Los Angeles, CA, beginning at the times set forth in each of the original notices and on the
dates listed above.
In the meantime, LPL is continuing to try to resolve this matter with ViewSonic. Thus, if
LPL is able to resolve these issues with ViewSonic in whole or in part, an appropriate stipulation
will be submitted for approval by Your Honor.
Respectfully submitted,
cc: Counsel as shown on the attached certificate
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 610 Filed O3/30/2007 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned counsel certifies that, on March 30, 2007, copies of the
foregoing document were served as follows:
BY EMAIL AND BY HAND:
Jeffrey B Bove, Esq. Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Esq.
Jaclyn M. Mason, Esq. Anne Shea Gaza, Esq.
Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP Richards, Layton & Finger
1007 North Orange Street One Rodney Square
P.O. Box 2207 P.O. Box 551
Wilmington, Delaware 19899-2207 Wilmington, DE 19899
BY EMAIL AND BY U.S. MAIL:
Scott R. Miller, Esq. Valerie Ho, Esq.
Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP Mark H. Krietzman, Esq.
355 South Grand Avenue Frank C. Merideth, Jr., Esq.
Suite 3150 Greenberg Traurig 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 grk0922)
Richard D. Kirk
632604-1
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 610
Filed 03/30/2007
Page 1 of 4
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 610
Filed 03/30/2007
Page 2 of 4
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 610
Filed 03/30/2007
Page 3 of 4
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 610
Filed 03/30/2007
Page 4 of 4
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms