Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 590 Filed O3/16/2007 Page 1 of 4
Rncwaaaws, L.AY·r0r»s Sc Fmoaa
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATSON
Our; Rcurawszv Sc>uAm;
$320 N0rm·i Kms Smazerr
ANNE SHEA Gam Wsmrwerow, Ds:i.Aw.¤.Fza react wiser ¤·»·.
<:a0a> ee :-7700 {:;i5:@?;L’g;iiég
Fax moan esl-7701
WWWr.RLF`COM
March 16,2007
BY E-MAIL & HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Vincent .ir Poppiti
BLANK ROME LLP
Chase Manhattan Center
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: LG.PhiIip.s LCD C0), Lrdi v ViewSonic Corp., at al., CWA. Nor 04—343—JJF ·
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
I write to supplement the record regarding third party discovery and enclose for Your
Honors review and consideration a letter from Charlene Oh of Greenberg Traurig to Shari
Klevens, Esquire of McKenna Long and Aldridge, dated March I6, 2007.
Riipectfuig, C
Anne Shea Jaza ii ;<
(#4093)
ASG/afg
cc: Clerk of Court (via CM/ECE)
Richard Kirk, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Cormac T. Connor, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Mark Krietzman, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Scott R. Miller, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Jeffrey B. Bove, Esquire (via electronic mail)
ritri-ziziram

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 590 Filed 03/16/2007 Page 2 of 4
Greenberg
O
Traurig
Charlene Oh
ra. are seams
Fax 310.588 7800
0hc@gtfaw com
March I6, 2007
VIA EMAIL
Ms. Shari Klevens
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
1900 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Re: LG'.Philq:•s LCD, Co., Ltd v. Tatung Company et al.
U.S. District Court Case No. 04-343 JJF
Dear Shari: ·
I write in response to your letter of March 15, 2007 and in regard to a telephone
conversation I had with Mr. Donald Fischbach of Baker, Manoclc & Jensen (counsel for Pelco)
on March 14, 2007. Your letter contains a very serious accusation of improper conduct. The
"facts" on which you base your accusation are completely false.
Your letter states that “it is clearly improper to suggest to a third party that it should not
produce documents in response to a valid subpoena or that producing such documents may
violate a court order?
1. Neither I nor any of 'I`at11ng’s lawyers have suggested, encouraged, or otherwise .
instructed third parties not to respond to LPL’s subpoenas.
During my conversation with Mr. Fischbach, I was informed that: (a) Pelco served
timely objections to LPL’s subpoena; (b) Pelco had attempted to informally resolve its
concerns regarding the impropriety of LPL’s subpoena; however, your offer to revise the
discovery requests failed to satisfactorily address Pelco’s concerns; (c) Pelco therefore moved
to quash LPi.’s subpoena on March 7, 2007 in the Eastern District of California. That motion
to quash is scheduled for hearing on Monday, March 19, 2007.
As I am sure you are aware, under Rule 45(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
once a subpoenaed party serves objections, its obligation to produce documents is suspended.
Mr. Fischbach was, of course, aware of this rule, and told me that Pelcc had nevertheless
decided to produce a very limited number of documents, with production date set for Thursday,
L4 126749350v13¢'16/2007
Greenberg `fraurig, LLP l Attorneys at tsw l los Angeles Office l 2450 Colorado Avenue E Suite 400E I Santa Monica. CA 90404 l Tel 3‘l0 586.7700 I Fax 310 585.7800 I vnvwegtlawcon

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 590 Filed O3/16/2007 Page 3 of 4
Shari Klevins
March 16, 2007
Page 2
March i5. I requested that if Pelco were to produce any documents on that date to LPL, that
Tatung be given courtesy copies. Mr. Fischbach agreed to this request.
Yesterday aiternoon (March 15), I received a voicemail from Mr. Fischbach indicating
that Pelco had decided to postpone its scheduled document production and wait until Monday
for the Court’s ruling on Pelco’s motion to guash. He indicated that Pelco would be ready to
produce if, and as soon as, the Court orders it on Monday. Your statement that "[a]s a result of
your phone call with Mr. Fischbach, Pelco recalied its package item FedEx yesterday and is
now withholding ali of its responsive documents" is therefore an incorrect assumption you
made, and is not an appropriate basis on which to accuse opposing counsel of improper
conduct.
Counsel for Tatung is certainly entitled to contact the subpoenaed parties who are
’l`atung’s customers, inform them of 'I`atung’s motions for protective order, and attempt to
cooperate, just as you have had frequent contact with the subpoenaed parties in an effort to
inform them of LPL’s arguments and ask for their cooperation. _
2. Whether or not LPL’s third party discovery is "valid” and "legitimate" is an issue H
currently before the Eastern District of California as well as a dozen other district
courts.
Your accusation that I acted improperly by “suggesting" that Pelco not comply with a
“valid” subpoena mischaracterizes the facts. As you are aware, both Pelco (the subpoenaed
party) and Tatung are independently seeking relief, in two separate proceedings (a motion to
quash and a motion for protective order), from what both deem an invalid and improper
subpoena.
Moreover, it was entirely proper to inform Mr. Fischbach, and forward a copy, of the
Southern District of F1orida’s order granting relief in connection with a nearly identical
subpoena. That order, which remains in effect, is further evidence that the "vaiidity" of }".,PL’s
subpoenas is questionable. Indeed, two other district courts have since ruled in Tatung’s favor.
3. Neither I nor any of 'I`atung’s lawyers have asserted that a third party’s
compliance with LPL’s subpoena would "vioiate a court order."
I made no such statement to Mr. Fischbach. As you are surely aware, Tatung’s
motions for protective orders assert that LPL’s third party discovery tactics are an improper
attempt to circumvent an impending decision from the Special Master on the discoverability of
highly confidential information regarding unaccused products.
tn vzsusasuvr arrszzcor
Greenberg Traurig, LLP

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 590 Filed O3/16/2007 Page 4 of 4
Shari Klevins
March I6, 2007
Page 3
I provided Mr. Fisehbach with a copy of Tatung’s motion for protective order. Given
that Tattmg’s motion is premised on the fact that an order from the Delaware Special Master is
shortly forthcoming, it is both false and illogical to suggest that I told Mr. Fischbach that
complying the subpoena would "violate a court order.”
Your letter is not based on any accurate facts but rather on seliiserving assumptionsr
The fact that LPL immediateiy forwarded your letter to the Special Master without waiting for
a response from me (as you know, I have been in depositions the last two days) is further
evidence that LPL is manu.facturi.ug claims of wrongfui conduct in order to prejudice the
Tattmg Defendants. In the iiiture, please make sure you have all ofthe facts before suggesting
that opposing counsei has engaged in improper conduct. ,_
Sincerely,
Charlene Oh in
LA 126749350v13/16»*200?
Greenberg Traurlg, {LP

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 590

Filed 03/16/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 590

Filed 03/16/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 590

Filed 03/16/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 590

Filed 03/16/2007

Page 4 of 4