Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 558-16 Filed O3/08/2007 Page1 0f 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 558-16 Filed 03/08/2007 Page 2P<5‘£S 1 Ofz
Christenson, Cass
From: Christenson, Cass
Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2007 10:28 PM
To: 'Tracy Roman'
Cc: Frank Merideth; Scott Miller
Subject: RE: Undesignated Topics
Tracy:
Thank you for your recent email below. Please note that your email is entirely incorrect in suggesting that I
refused to identify any information for you. That is simply untrue and I am puzzled by your meritless accusation.
In any event, as I understand your email in response to my proposal, we have reached an agreement with the
Defendants on these issues. I appreciate Defendants' cooperation in resolving these issues. Specifically, we
agree:
1. LPL will designate one or more witnesses, subject to its objections, for deposition at a mutually agreed time on
Topics 15(a)(6), 15(b), 15(c), 21(a), 23(a), 24(I), 25(a), 25(b), 27(a), 27(d), and 28;
2. LPL and Defendants will not designate Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses or call fact witnesses at trial to testify
concerning the specific subject matter of Defendants Topics 24(f), 24(g), or 25(c), which address infringement
contentions, validity / invalidity contentions, and the scope of the claims or the meaning of claim terms. Of
course, however, LPL may call at trial any inventors of the rearmount patents as those witnesses were deposed
already and can properly testify as to any issues within the scope of their depositions.
3. For disputed Topics 13(m), 13(n), 13(r), 13(wj, we agree to treat those topics as part of the existing topics in
the notice, identified by you as corollary topics, for which we have designated Mr. J. S. Kim. You will depose Mr.
Kim this week and he will address the topics for which he was previously designated. You have not specified any
additional information that you believe should be covered based on Topics 13(m), 13(n), 13(r), 13(w). For
disputed Topics 20(b), 21(b)(3), 21(b)(4), 23(b), and 23(c), you have already deposed Mr. Kim, LPL's designee,
on the corollary topics, so these topics are now moot.
Nothing in our agreement changes in any way the time limits for any depositions of LPL's witnesses.
Regards,
Cass
From: Tracy Roman [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, March 04, 2007 8:31 PM
T0: Christenson, Cass
Cc: Frank Merideth; Scott Miller
Subject: Undesignated Topics
Cass;
We have considered your proposal regarding the deposition topics for which LPL has not designated any
witnesses. In an effort to avoid unnecessary motion practice, we hope that a resolution can be reached.
We appreciate that LPL has agreed to designate one or more witnesses, subject to its objections, for
topics l5(a)(6), 15(b), l5(c), 2l(a), 23(a), 24(i), 25(a), 25(b), 27(a), 27(d), and 28 under the ViewSonic
amended deposition notices. We understand this deposition will also take place during the week of
3/8/2007

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 558-16 Filed O3/08/2007 Page 3P&B92 Om
March 19 — the dates we have mutually agreed to be in Washington for the completion of the LPL 30(b)
(6) depositions. We look forward to receiving the identity of your designees for these topics tive court
days before then as the parties have agreed.
You indicated that LPL will not designate a witness on topics 24(f), 24(g), or 25(c) because LPL
contends those topics seek legal conclusions and expert opinion/analysis. LPL therefore proposes that
these issues will be addressed in the Markman briefing and expert discovery. As we have previously
advised you, ViewSonic is willing to agree that LPL need not produce a witness on these topics so long
as LPL also agrees not to put forth a witness in the case other than an outside retained expert to testify
on any of the matters within the scope of these topics. Failing that, we cannot agree to your suggestion
and must insist that LPL produce a witness to testify on these issues. LPL must likewise agree that
ViewSonic can elect to either produce a witness or not to testify on similar topics noticed by LPL on the
same conditions.
That leaves topics l3(m), l3(n), l3(r), 13(w), 20(b), 2l(b)(3), 21(b)(4), 23(b), and 23(c) at issue. You
stated that these topics appear to be duplicative and redundant to other topics, although you would not
identify for me which topics these duplicated. We have again looked at these topics and do not believe
they are duplicative. In the spirit of compromise, we propose that if you agree we can read each topic
listed below (for which a witness has already been designated) to cover the corollary listed disputed
topic, and that we can question the designated witness accordingly, then we can agree to eliminate a
separate designee for the disputed topic. Thus, for example, you would agree we can read Topic 13(g)
as properly noticed to cover the subjects listed in Topic l3(m) and we can question Mr. J .S. Kim as the
designated witness based on this understanding.
DlS}@d Lnic Corollary Topic
13m 1 3 g
l3n 13g
l3r 13h and l3c
13w 13f
20b 20a.
2lb.3 21b.l and2
2lb.4 2lb.land2
23b 21b.l and 2
23c 21b.l and 2
As you will recall, back in January ViewSonic attempted to address your concerns regarding duplicative
topics by withdrawing a few topics and serving amended notices. We believe this proposed compromise
should alleviate any remaining concern you might have while also ensuring that there is no dispute as to
the subjects into which ViewSonic is allowed to inquire. We look forward to your early response so that
we may properly examine Mr. J .S. Kim this week.
Regards,
Tracy
Tracy R. Roman
Raskin Peter Rubin & Simon, LLP
1801 Century Park East, Suite 23OO
Los Angeles, CA 90067
rei: 310.277.00lO
Fax: 310.277.19BO
3/8/2007

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 558-16

Filed 03/08/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 558-16

Filed 03/08/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 558-16

Filed 03/08/2007

Page 3 of 3