Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 562 Filed O3/O9/2007 Page 1 of 4
222 l')l*Zl.i\\\QtlllZ Avtauuis, Sui ria 900
PO Box 251550
" i wr w .· M.

fx T T O R N E Y, S will MEIEITAS int/.' §·lFil.*i& \’JtlllLl`l\'Jll)l.
www lmyztrclllmt com
502.~(i5’5»§00l`)
(Fax`) 502—(i58»(1395
\‘t’lz1‘1‘it1t`s Duuurt Accnass
(302) 42944208
rkirl<@bayardtirm.con2
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
BY HAND AND BY EMAIL
March 9, 2007
The Honorable Vincent .l. Poppiti
Blank Rome LLP
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: LG.Philz}Js LCD C0., Ltd v. ViewSonic, CLA. N0. 04·-343 JJF
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
Plaintiff LG. Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPL") respectfully requests that the Special Master
extend the deadline for third party discovery in the referenced action in light of interference by
Defendants Tatung Company and Tatung Company of America, Inc. (collectively "Tatung")
with LPL’s legitimate attempts to obtain necessary third party discovery. LPL also seeks an
expedited hearing on this issue because the Special Master’s next scheduled hearing, set for
March 23, 2007, would not afford LPL sufficient time to conduct the remaining third party
discovery after a decision is rendered on this motion.
On February 13 and 14, 2007, LPL served approximately 2.3 third party subpoenas
(“‘Sul>poenas”) on various distributors, retailers, and purchasers of Det`endants’ products in the
United States. The Subpoenas were issued based on LPL’s understanding that these parties, who
have current or former business relationships with Tatung and ViewSonic Corporation
("ViewSonic”), have documents that are relevant to the instant action, including but not limited
to, documents related to purchase and sale ofthe infringing products in the United States,
documents relating to Defendants efforts to market the inttinging products inthe United States,
and other important discovery concerning infringement, inducement, damages, and other issues.
The Subpoenas seek documents and information related solely to the products at issue in this
action. In addition, the Subpoenas requested that all documents be produced by March 5, 2007,
and that depositions occur between March 12 and March 27, 2007, consistent with the March .30
deadline for third party discovery in this case. LPI., provided notice and copies ofthe Subpoenas
to the Defendants prior to the service ofthe Subpoenas.
During a telephone conference on January 30, 2007, Tatung indicated for the tirst time
that it intended to tile motions for protective orders with respect to one ofthe Subpoenas, which
was directed to Hew1ett—Packard, but Tatung never did so. More than one month later, on March
5, Tatung again threatened to tile motions for protective orders. In addition, even though Tatung

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 562 Filed O3/O9/2007 Page 2 of 4
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
Tris. Bnvnrzo Finn March 0. 2007
Page 2
had received the Subpoenas nearly three weeks earlier, Tatung indicated that some or all of such
motions would be made on an ex parte basis because ofthe upcoming return dates on the
Subpoenas, which incidentally was that same day. (See Ex. 1, Emails between V. Ho and C.
Connor (Mar. 5··7, 2007).) In an exchange of emails, LPL strenuously objected to Tatung’s
position that it could file ex parte motions on any issue in the case, including any issues related
to the third party subpoenas served by LPL. (See id.) in addition, LPL further reiterated its
position that Tatung had no standing to raise objections to the Subpoenas. (See id.)
On March 8, 2007, LPL received several motions for protective order filed by Tatung.
These motions were tiled in the District of Oregon andthe Western District of Washington in
relation to the Subpoenas served on Planar Systems and Amazorrcom, respectively. However,
because Defendants have taken the position that they were permitted to tile some such motions
on an exporte basis, it is unclear whether Tatung tiled any other motions and contacted any other
third parties, and if so, whether those parties are now withholding the requested discovery. As
Tatung does not have standing to chalienge the Subpoenas, Tatung is improperly interfering with
LPL’s legitimate attempts to obtain third party discovery.
Tatung does not have standing to raise any objections to LPL’s Rule 45 subpoenas. Rule
45(c) provides protection to persons "subj ect to subpoenas? Indeed, "[u]nless a party to an
action can make claim to some personal right or privilege in respect to the subject matter of a
subpoena duces teczwt directed to a nonparty witness, the patty to the action has no right to relief
under Rule 45(b) or 30(b)." Dart Dzdustries, Inc. v. Liquid Nitrogen Processing, 50 F.R.D. 286,
29l (D. Del. 1970); see Ponsford v. United States, 771 F.2d 1305, 1308 (9th Cir. 1985) (denying
motion to quash for lack of` standing); Novo Products, Bic. v. Kismo Video, Inc., 220 F.R.D. 238,
241 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (denying motion to quash because no showing ofpersonal right or
privilege); Oliver B- Cctmron and Son, Inc. v. Fidelity and Cas. Co. 0fNew York, 519 F. Supp.
668, 680 (D. Del. 1981) (denying motion to quash because movant failed to prove documents
sought were privileged). Here, Tatung has no basis to object to the infomation sought by LPI..’s
subpoenas and, thus, does not have standing to move to quash any of LPL’s subpoenas. As such,
Tatung has evidently filed these motions solely to delay and impede LPL’s discovery efforts.
Tatung’s interference with valid third party discovery is inappropriate and is nothing
more than an attempt to delay the third party discovery until alter the March 30, 2007 discovery
deadline. Indeed, on March 7, 2007, LPL received a telephone message from Sensormatic, who
had previously agreed to produce the documents requested in the Subpoena. In that message,
Sensormatic stated that Tatung told Sensormatic that it planned to move for a protective order.
Sensormatic further expressed concern about being in the middle ofthe dispute between the
parties regarding the Subpoena. Sensormatic has not produced documents yet. On March 8,
2007, LPL received correspondence from Tyco Electronics Corp. ("Tyco"), who LPL had also
served with a Subpoena. (See Ex. 2.) Prior to that date, Tyco had also agreed to produce
documents in response to the Subpoena- In the correspondence on March 8, however, Tyco
stated that, "I understand that [Tatung] intends to file a motion for protective order with regard to
this subpoena. In light of this, Tyco will await the disposition of this motion by the court before
providing any material in response to the subpoena? (Id.) These communications clearly show
that Tatung’s motions are delaying LPL’s legitimate discovery in this action. Because Tatung
waited until now to file motions pertaining to subpoenas served almost one month ago, it is also

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 562 Filed O3/O9/2007 Page 3 of 4
The Honorable Vincent J W Poppiti
THE BAYARD FIRM March 9. 2007
Page 3
clear that Tatung is using its motions as a way to prevent LPL from obtaining third party
discovery prior to the March 30 deadline,.
Tatur1g’s disruptive communications with third parties is improper and disregards the
Special l.\/[aster’s prior admonition about discovery misconduct, (Ex. 3, Report & Recomrns.
(Aug. 16, 2005) (D1, 197) (imposing sanctions on Tatung).) Ultimately, alter Your Honor
reviewed "l`atung’s pattern of delay and discovery abuse, Tatung withdrew its jurisdictional
defense. (See generally id") LPL also asks that Your Honor take judicial notice of Tatung’s
prior but strikingly similar behavior in another case. See Safer Display Technology, Ltd. v.
T cztzmg C0., 227 F,R.D. 435 (E.D, Va. 2004) (copy attached hereto), In that case, which Your
Honor referenced in the August 16, 2005 Report, (see Ex. 3 at 37-41), Tatung engaged in similar
delays before it finally withdrew its jurisdictional defense, See Safer Display, 227 F.R,D, at 437.
(See generally Ex. 4, Pl., Safer Display’s Subm. Re: Tatung’s Mot. For Leave to Withdraw Juris,
Challenger) Notably, in Safer Display, Tatung likewise had impeded third party discovery by
contacting and attempting to dissuade third parties from producing discovery, (see Ex. 4 at 9~l0),
and tiling motions for protective orders for which Tatung lacked standing, (see id, at lO—1 1).
Tatung should not now be permitted to interfere with and delay LPL’s third party
discovery until after the discovery deadline, at which point Tatung likely will argue that the
discovery is untimely and that LPL can no longer obtain it, Such gamesmanship should not he
permitted As such, LPL respectfully requests an extension of time to conduct LPL’s third party
discovery. LPL also requests that the Special Master order Tatung to disclose a list of parties it
has contacted and that Tatung provide notice to LPI. of all motions tiled in this action, including
any tiled improperly on an ex pczrte basis,
Respectfully submitted,
(rlc0922)
cc: Counsel as shown on the attached certificate

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 562 Filed O3/O9/2007 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned counsel certifies that, on March 9, 2.007, he electronically tiled
the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which wiil send
automatic notification of the filing to the following:
Jeffrey B Bove, Esq. Frederick L. Cottrelt, 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
PO. Box 2207 PO. Box 551
Wilmington, Delaware l9899~2207 Wilmington, DE 19899
The undersigned counsel further certities that copies of the foregoing riocument
were sent by entail to the above counsel on March 9, 2007, and wiii be sent by hand on
March 9, 2007, and were sent by email on March 9, 2007, and will be sent by lirst class
mail on March 9, 2007, to the following nornregistered participants:
Scott R. Miller, Esq. Vaierie Ho, Esq.
Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP Mark H. Krietzrnan, Esq.
355 South Grand Avenue Frank C. Merideth, Jr., Esq.
Suite 3 t 50 Greenberg Traurig LLP
Los Angeles, CA 90071 2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400iE
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Tracy Roman, Esq.
Raslrin Peter Rubin & Simon LLP
i80l Century Park East, Suite .2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
/s/ Richard D. Kirk (rk922;
Richard D. Kirk
57l·l·\7·|

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 562

Filed 03/09/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 562

Filed 03/09/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 562

Filed 03/09/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 562

Filed 03/09/2007

Page 4 of 4