Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 558 Filed O3/08/2007 Page 1 of 3
222 Dnrraxwrziz Aventis, Sutra 900
PO. BOX 25150
\W1l..MlNGTON, DE 19899
Zu·Cox>1aF<>1< Diaimaiairas; 19801
A T T O R N E Y S T7-LMERETAS l.1\W FIRMS WOl%ll7Wll)E
www bayurclfirm com
$02655-5000
(Fm) $02»6ss-6595
Wrursws Duuacnr Access
(302) 429-4208
rkiriktiébayaiidtirrivrgetii
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
BY HAND AND BY EMAIL
March 8, 2007
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
Blank Rome LLP
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: LG.Philz)vs LCD C0., Ltd. v. ViewSonic, C.A. N0. 04-343 JJF
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
On behalf of LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPL"), I write to object to the Defendants’ last-
minute attempt to block deposition testimony on numerous topics as set forth in ViewSonic’s
March 7, 2007 letter to Your Honor.
The hearing scheduled for tomorrow is to address a defined set of issues and motions
previously submitted and joined. LPL already has invested substantial time and effort to prepare
for depositions that start on Monday, March 12, 2007. The schedule for these depositions was
submitted to Your Honor in my February 23, 2007 letter. (See Ex. 1.) Notably, Defendants did
not suggest at that time that they would not produce a witness on any of these topics. Indeed, in
every one of the objections served by the Defendants, the Defendants have confirmed that they
are producing a witness to testify on those topics. (See Exs. 2 and 3.) Further, Defendants’ own
deposition notices address the same issues and are substantially broader than the disputed topics
set forth in LPL’s deposition notices. (See, ag., Ex. 4 at Topic 13; Ex. 5 at Topic 13.)
Defendants’ March 7, 2007 request for a protective order comes too late and should be
summarily rejected. In a recent teleconference, Your Honor made clear that a party responding
to a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice must produce a witness to testify on all topics or obtain a
protective order in advance of the depositions. Instead, Defendants simply delayed and took no
action other than to object and agree to produce witnesses on the disputed topics. (See Exs. 2
and 3.) Filing a motion so close to the depositions is a nullity, as it leaves no time for the
motion to be fairly briefed, argued, and decided. LPL also never had an opportunity to respond
to Mr. Miller’s March 6, 2007 letter, received in the afternoon that day and demanding
capitulation from LPL "by the close of business today," two hours later. LPL is preparing
diligently for the matters properly pending for tomo1row’s hearing and for depositions previously
653822-l

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 558 Filed O3/08/2007 Page 2 of 3
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
THE BAYARD FIRM Mm 8,2007
Page 2
scheduled. The topics were set forth in the December 5, 2006 deposition notices, and ViewSonic
and Tatung have agreed to provide witnesses on these topics. (See Exs. 2 and 3.)
LPL respectfully requests, therefore, that Your Honor deny the motion for protective
order as untimely, contrary to the established deposition schedule, contrary to Defendants prior
agreement to designate witnesses on these topics, and for failing to comply with Local Rule
7. l.l. Not only did ViewSonic not attempt in good faith to resolve many of these issues, but
ViewSonic’s counsel cancelled a teleconference that had been agreed to in January to discuss
deposition topics, and then refused to talk to LPL’s counsel by phone for several weeks.
Recently, moreover, the parties have reached an agreement that should moot any
concerns about Rule 30(b)(6) testimony concerning infringement contentions, validity
contentions, and claim scope or claim tenn meaning, all of which is properly addressed in the
expert discovery process. Defendants specifically sought such testimony from LPL (See Ex. 4 at
Topics 24(D, 24(g) and 25(c); Ex. 5 at Topics 24(f), 24(g) and 25(c).) LPL objected and
proposed a resolution. (See Ex. 6, March l, 2007 email from Mr. Christenson.) The parties then
reached an agreement. (See Ex. 7, March 4 email from Ms. Roman and March 7 email from Mr.
Christenson.)
Respiectfully submitted, N
M Irv-·-·V(
Richard D. Kirk (rk0922)
cc: Counsel as shown on the attached certificate
653822-1

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 558 Filed O3/08/2007 Page 3 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned counsel certifies that, on March 8, 2007, he electronically filed
the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send
automatic notification of the filing to the following:
Jeffrey B Bove, Esq. Frederick L. Cottrell, Ill, Esq.
Jaclyn M. Mason, Esq. Anne Shea Gaza, Esq.
Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP Richards, Layton & Finger
1007 Noith Orange Street One Rodney Square
P.O. Box 2207 P.O. Box 551
Wilmington, Delaware 19899-2207 Wilmington, DE 19899
The undersigned counsel further certifies that copies of the foregoing document
were sent by email to the above counsel on March 8, 2007, and will be sent by hand on
March 8, 2007, and were sent by email on March 8, 2007, and will be sent by first class
mail on March 8, 2007, to the following non-registered participants:
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 grk922l
Richard D. Kirk
571447-l

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 558

Filed 03/08/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 558

Filed 03/08/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 558

Filed 03/08/2007

Page 3 of 3