Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 607 Filed 03/30/2007 Page 1 of 4
Ftnci-ratios, l.A~r"rc:>r~1 & Fmcaarz
A PROFESEIUNAL. A5$DCIAT!0N
Ona Ftoonsv Souant:
Fnaoanicm L. Ccrrnam., ill 920 NGRTH Km'; STREET ¤*nE¤T UW-
rglamma Wicmincsron, Di::.AwAns: zsaeoi C§§§’5&;;’F5§’§M
taoai esi-7700 ELL
Fax taoai eu:-7701
www.¤tr.c¤n
March 30, 2007
BY E-MAH. & HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
BLANK ROME LLP
Chase Manhattan Center
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: LG.Phi!ip.s LCD Co., Ltd. v. ViewSonic Corp., et al., CA. No. 04443-JJF
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
Defendant Tatung Company (“Tatung") hereby moves to cornpei Plaintiff LG. Philips LCD Co.,
Ltd. ("1..PL") to supplement its responses to Tatung’s First and Second Sets of Requests for Production
and to produce all responsive documents. Specifically, Tatung seeks ali documents responsive to
Requests 5-6, 8—l0, 12, i5, 36-3 7, 39, 41-42, 44-49, 52-56, 58-59, 64—67, 69-70, 72, 74, 76, 79-80, 84, 88,
96,i08,1l2~l13,114—li6, 118420, l22, 124,l35—137, 139, and 150-l52..§
A. Tatung Recently Discovered That LPL May Be Withholding Numerous Responsive
Documents.
During the depositions of LPL’s inventors and Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses which took place the
weeks of February 26 and March 5, 2007, Tatung learned that LPL may have additional responsive
documents that have not been produced. For example, at the last minute, LPL produced some additional
documents at the depositions ofMr. Kim and Mr. Cho. Because the resumed deposition of Mr. Kim and
the deposition of Mr. Bang were scheduled to begin the third week of March, Tatung sent LPL a letter on
March 15, 2007 asking LPL to i) confirm that it has performed a diligent search for responsive
documents; 2) confirm that all responsive documents that exist have been produced or identify a date by
which they will he produced; and 3) with respect to requests for which no responsive documents have
been located, to supplement its written responses to indicate that no documents exist. After delaying for
over a week, LPI,. finaily met and conferred with Tatnng regarding its document production on March 27-
29. §,eg Exs. B-H.
Almost all of LPL’s written responses state that "{s]ubject to and without waiving these
objections, LPI. will produce rmrnprivileged, responsive, und relevant d0cu.·nem'.s, to the extent stuck
documents exist'? (Emphasis added.) However, during the meet and confers, when asked whether LPI,.
withheld any responsive documents based on LPL’s numerous objections, LPL was equivocal, stating that
E Tatung agreed to narrow many ofthe requests as stated in Mr. l-Iassid’s March 29, 2007 email to
Mr. Connor, which is attached hereto as Ex. A.
stri-sisssss-1

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 607 Filed O3/30/2007 Page 2 of 4
The Honorable Vincent J, Poppiti
March 30, 2007
Page 2
it would have to investigate the issue. It became apparent during the course of the parties’ discussions
that LPL in fact may have withheld numerous documents based on boilerplate objections (eg., that the
requests are vague, overly broad, burdensome and seek privileged materials). See Exs. I-L, Exe A.
in addition, when it was pointed out to LPL that not a single document had been produced in
response to many requests for which LPL har! agreed to produce rlocwneuts iff they existed, LPL again
was equivocal, stating that it did not know whether certain categories of documents exist and would have
to investigate. Tatung asked LPL to identify at least the requests for which there are no responsive
documents so that it would not have to waste the parties’ and the Special Master’s time by moving to
compel production of nomexisting documents. LPL, however, refused to provide such confirmation
during the meet and confers. As a result, 'Fatung has no choice but to move to compel on all ofthe
requests set forth above. See Ex. A. Of course, Tatung is willing to continue discussing these issues
between now (the deadline for filing motions) and the hearing on April 13.
B. LPL’s Equivocal Responses Are Improper.
LPL’s equivocal responses are improper because they do not provide any insight into whether
LPI., has performed a diligent search for documents, whether LPL has produced all responsive documents,
and whether responsive documents even exist. See Elkay Mg. Co. v. Ebco Mfg. Co., l995 WL 389822
*7 (ND. lll. 1995) (finding party’s statement that it would produce °‘responsive, relevant non»privileged
documents" to be “wholly inadequate," because "from reading {the] responses, it was impossible for [the
propoundirrg party] to known. which documents, if any, [the responding party] agreed to produce and
which it was withholding as privileged."); Bob Barker C0., v. Ferguson Safety Products, Inc., 2006 WL
648674 *4 (ND. Cal. 2006) (finding that because defendants responses were "too ambiguous to permit
[plaintiff] or the Court to determine the extent to which {defendant] may be withholding responsive
documents based on its other objections rather than asserting that no responsive documents exist," the
court held that defendant "rnust either produce all documents responsive to this request (as limited by this
order), or serve a further response plainly and unequivocally stating that no documents exist in its
possession, custody, or control that are responsive to that specitic request,").
C. LPL Should Be Required To Supplement Its Responses And Production For Requests That
Seek information Retating To The Patents-In··Suit.
The requests at issue seek information that is directly relevant to this case and is reasonably
calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidencel For example, Requests 5~6, 8-iO, l2, I5, 44-
49, 76, 84, 96, ll6, ll8~l20, l35—i37, 139, and 150~l52 seek information regarding the Patents—in-Suit
and the invention claimed, including communications, drawings, notebooks, prototypes, reports, diaries,
calendars, memos, marketing plans, publications and press releases that relate to the Patcnts—in-Suit
and/or have been prepared by the inventors. LPL has produced little to no documents in response to these
requests.
arr:-srsssss-1

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 607 Filed O3/30/2007 Page 3 of 4
The Honorable Vincent .i. Poppiti
March 30, 2007
Page 3
D. LPL Should Be Required To Supplement Its Responses And Production For Requests
Directed To Validity And Enforceabiiity Of The Patents—»In—Suitr
Requests 37, 39, 4l—42, 54, 80, 114—l 15, 122, and l24 seek information regarding the validity of
the Patents-in—Suit, including prior art that may be in LPL’s possession. For example, Tatung recently
discovered that the 500LC monitor made by LPL’s parent company, LG. Electronics, lnc. ("LGE"), may
be prior art to the Patents—in—Suit. Tatung has asked LPL to produce sales and technical documents
relating to the SOOLC and the LCD module used in the 500LC (which presumably was made by LPL or
its predecessor). Tatung believes these documents may show that the 500LC was on sale and in public
use in the United States prior to the critical date. LPL has refused to produce these documents or any
other documents responsive to the above requests.
Requests 108, 1i2-l 13 seek joint venture and technology sharing agreements which may directly
impact LPL,’s standing to sue. Tatung believes that there may be joint venture and technology sharing
agreements between LPL and third parties that may cover the purported invention in this case. For
example, in the California action involving LPi,,’s so—calied “Side—Mount Patents," the Court held that
LPL had no standing to sue under those patents and had never owned the invention claimed because LGE
had assigned those rights to another company (Digital Equipment Corporation) pursuant to ajoint venture
agreement.
E. LZPL Should Be Required To Supplement Its Responses And Production For Requests
Directed To Its Claims Against Tatung.
Requests 52, 53, 5S—56, and 58~59 seek documents relating to Tatung’s products and Tatung’s
alleged infringement. LPL has produced little to no documents in response to these requests.
F. LPL should Be Required To Supplement Its Responses And Production For Requests
Directed To Its Claim For A Reasonable Royalty.
Requests 64-67, 69-70, 72, 74, and 79 all seek documents relating to LPL’s claim for a reasonable
royalty. While LPL has confirmed that it has produced all license agreements it intends to rely on at trial
(none of which pertain to the Patents—in—Suit), LPL has refused to produce documents relating to the
license agreements, such as negotiations regarding the licenses, memos or other communications
regarding LPL’s decision to enter into the licenses, the royalties paid, and the products sold under the
licenses, in short, LPL wishes to rely on the royalty amounts set forth in the license agreements but
refuses to produce any documents showing the circumstances surrounding those licenses. These
documents are relevant under the welhestablished Georgia Pncgic factors for determining a reasonable
royalty, including factors 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, and 12, Georgicr·Prrr:y’ic Corp. v (mired States Pfywoocf Corp.,
318 F. Supp. 1il6, i120(S.D.N.rY.. l970).
Accordingly, Tatung respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion to compel.
RLF1-31335584

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 607 Filed O3/30/2007 Page 4 of 4
The Honorable Vincent]. Poppiti
March 30, 2007
Page 4
Respectfully,
/
MZ/t ( crew »·~·
Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
FLC,IIl/afg
cc: Clerk ofthe Court (By Electronic Filing)
Richard Kirk, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Cormac T. Connor, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Lora Brzezynski, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Mark iirietzman, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Scott R. Miller, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Jeffrey B. Bove, Esquire (via eiectronic mail)
Tracy Roman, Esquire (via electronic mai!)
ram-sizssss-1

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 607

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 607

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 607

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 607

Filed 03/30/2007

Page 4 of 4