Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 552 Filed O3/08/2007 Page 1 of 4
CON NOLLY BOVE LODGE 8c HUTZ LLP
A Arronmevs AT i..Aw
wnuvnucrou, oz
The Nemours Building
JANLES D HEISMAN 1007 North Orange St.
Parma l P.O. Box 2207
Tc; 658-9141 Wilmington, DE 19899
Fax 252-4208 TEL: (302) ess 9141
Email [email protected] FAX: (302) 658 5614
Reply to Wilmington Office WEB: WWW_Cblh _COm
March 8, 2007
Via Email and Hand—DeZivery
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
Blank Rome LLP
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: LG.Phil1]2s LCD Co., Ltul v. ViewSonic Corporation, et al.
USDC Case N0. 04-343 JJF
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
Despite the clear prior rulings from Your Honor, LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd.
("LPL") again seeks to unilaterally shorten the deposition time of Mr. Jong Hwan Kim.
Mr. Kim is a named inventor of both of the patents in suit, and a witness designated by
LPL to respond to non-overlapping topics in four separate 30(b)(6) deposition notices.
LPL’s efforts to avoid its discovery obligations are exacerbated because LPL still has not
designated a witness to testify for numerous categories identified in ViewSonic’s 30(b)(6)
notices dating back to November, 2006, despite the impending discovery cut-off a mere 22
days hence.
ViewSonic has already had to expend substantial precious resources to overcome
LPL’s previous efforts to improperly limit or block the deposition testimony legitimately
sought by the defendants. This motion represents yet another attempt by LPL to resurrect
its earlier failed attempts to obstruct deposition discovery. Your Honor has already
overruled LPL’s refusal to acknowledge that the Scheduling Order permits each inventor to
be deposed as an individual for up to 21 hours. See Feb. 7, 2007 letter from Special Master
(DI 441) at 2-3. Your Honor also repeatedly confirmed that each 30(b)(6) designee may be
deposed for up to 7 hours in English (10.5 hours if an interpreter is needed) for each
30(b)(6) notice to which the witness is designated to respond. See Transcript of Feb. 21,
2007 conference with Special Master, p. 7:1. 23 - p. 9:1. 7; p. 14:11. 1-17; Transcript of Feb. ‘
28, 2007 conference with Special Master, p. 26:11. 13-24, and 27:11. 1-9. Still, LPL presses
forward with its attempt to thwart discovery.
After five partial days of testimony from Mr. Kim, LPL seeks to curtail his
deposition and the corresponding deposition discovery the defendants are entitled to obtain.
As the record demonstrates, the issue is not that the defendants are wasting time, but rather
that the witness is unwilling and/or unprepared to answer the questions that go to the
essence of the patents-in-suit and the supposed inventions at issue in this case.
525633
wiuvuucron, os wAsnmcrou, nc tos Auesuzs, cli

Case 1:O4—cv—OO343-JJF Document 552 Filed O3/08/2007 Page 2 of 4
y CONNOLLY Bova LODGE ar Hurz LLP
A ATTORNEYS AT LAW
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
March 8, 2007
Page 2
As Your Honor may recall, LPL elected to designate Mr. Kim to respond to non-
overlapping topics from all four 30(b)(6) notices ViewSonic served on LPL. See Ex. 1 l
(Feb. 22, 2007 letter from C. Christenson). While LPL continues to erroneously represent 1
that Mr. Kim has been designated only under three of the notices, Mr. Christianson’s Feb
22 letter and the list of witnesses and topics shown in Ex. 1 proves otherwise. Pursuant
to the law of the case, LPL must make Mr. Kim available for 21 hours as an inventor, plus
42 hours of 30(b)(6) testimony (4 notices X 10.5 hours per notice), for a total of 63 hours.
LPL argues that the agreement to take individual and 30(b)(6) testimony somehow
reduces its obligations under the FRCP and the Scheduling Order. But that agreement was
made only at the behest of, and to accommodate, LPL. Moreover, the parties already
discussed this contention at the time the agreement was made and defendants expressly
rejected that contention prior to entering into the agreement, a fact which LPL does not
dispute. Transcript of Feb. 28, 2007 conference with Special Master, p. 30:11. 1-16.
li
LPL nonetheless argues that it is inconvenient for Mr. Kim to travel a second time
from Korea to the U.S., and that the defendants should pay for Mr. Kim’s return. This t
argument is without merit. First, as a threshold matter, ViewSonic notes that it has taken
only approximately nine hours of Mr. Kim’s deposition, and has a right to depose Mr. Kim
for approximately half of the 63 hours Mr. Kim must be made available. Tellingly, LPL
concedes that the questioning of Mr. Kim by Mr. Miller, ViewSonic’s counsel, was
focused and efficient. See Transcript of March 2, 2007 hearing with Special Master, p. 43:
l. 22 — p. 44:1. 5. Defendants have repeatedly advised LPL that the time allotted by LPL for
this deposition was inadequate under the Court’s rulings. lt is LPL that refused to produce
Mr. Kim in the first instance for the required time. It is LPL that tmilaterally imposed a
schedule allotting only five shortened days for Mr. Kim’s deposition testimony. And it is
LPL that decided to have Mr. Kim leave the country before the 30(b)(6) deposition was
completed. Not only is LPL’s request outrageous, LPL should be ordered to pay for
ViewSonic’s attomeys’ fees incurred opposing this baseless motion.
LPL recently proposed a compromise whereby they would present Mr. Kim for an
additional 18 hours of deposition if the parties agreed to drop all of their motions on this
issue. Unfortunately, this proposal did not provide a mechanism for guaranteeing Mr.
Kim’s preparedness or willingness to answer questions when he returned, and therefore
could not be accepted as presented. LPL attempts to lay blame on defendants for Mr.
Kim’s unresponsiveness and basic reluctance to provide answers during his deposition. A
review of the complete transcripts demonstrates that any time inefficiently spent was
caused by Mr. Kim’s lack of preparation or unwillingness to answer questions directly
related to his patents and key issues in this case. LPL should not be rewarded for this
conduct. As discussed with the Special Master in the hearing on Friday March 2, the
important issue joined by this motion is not a shortening of the deposition of Mr. Kim, but
rather the establishment of a mechanism to ensure that Mr. Kim is both prepared to
respond, and does provide responsive answers to questions posed to him in the deposition
for which he is LPL’s corporate designee. Attached as Exhibit 2 are excerpts from the
transcript of Mr. Kim’s testimony elicited by counsel for ViewSonic on March 1 and 2.
Despite appearing as an inventor and a corporate designee for LPL, Mr. Kim either could

l
525633

Case 1:O4—cv—OO343-JJF Document 552 Filed O3/08/2007 Page 3 of 4
y CONNOLLY Bova LODGE at Hurz LLP
% ATTORNEYS AT LAW
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
March 8, 2007
Page 3
l
not recall or would not provide responsive answers to questions posed about key issues.
For example, the Korean parent application to the US patents depicts and discusses the
supposed advantages of the rear mount technology that is the subject of the patents-in—suit
and side mount technology. This discussion was omitted from the US patents for reasons l
Mr. Kim has failed to explain. Attempts to question Mr. Kim about whether the inventions
underlying the patents in suit provide any benefit over side mounting, either as depicted in 1
the KR application or as actually used by LPL in products put before Mr. Kim, drew either t
"I do not know" or unresponsive answers. Questions directed to placement of a mounting
fastener on the back of an LCD product to practice this supposed invention of the patents in l
suit drew similar responses. Indeed, even attempts to ascertain the structure of the display ~
device to which the supposed invention can be applied (discussed as the conventional
technology) were unavailing. Not only should the deposition continue, it should and must t
continue under conditions designed to ensure that responsive answers are provided to
questions relating to topics for which Mr. Kim is LPL’s corporate designee. “
During the March 2"d hearing, the Court invited suggestions on how to ensure that
the deposition move forward in an expeditious and proper manner. One solution is for the
deposition to be conducted in Wilmington at the offices of the Special Master (or such
other location convenient to the Special Master) to allow the Court to directly oversee the
deposition. This would prevent the alleged harassment of the witness (a concern raised by
Mr. Bono) as well as the opportunity for the parties and the Special Master to ensure that
responsive answers are provided. An alternative is for the Court to rule that LPL is bound
by the responses provided by Mr. Kim, and that it cannot provide a witness who cannot or
will not answer and then argue that defendants can ferret out the information from other
disparate sources. It is not sufficient for LPL to produce a corporate designee to testify at
the level of testimony provided thus far by Mr. Kim, and then seek to force defendants to
rely solely on documents or interrogatory responses to cure LPL’s inability to provide
deposition discovery.
Based on the foregoing, ViewSonic respectfully requests that the Special Master
deny LPL’s motion for a protective order for Mr. Kim, and order that Mr. Kim shall be
made available for the portion of the 63 hours remaining, and that LPL pay ViewSonic’s
costs for opposing this motion. ViewSonic also requests that the Court establish a
mechanism to ensure that meaningful testimony is provided in response to proper questions
posed to LPL’s corporate designee.
R tfully submitted,
\ » s
if
Ja es D. Heisman
525633

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 552 Filed O3/08/2007 Page 4 of 4
r LLv Bova LODGE at Hurz LLP
%
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti ‘
March 8, 2007 .
Page 4
cc: Gasapare J. Bono, Esq.
Cass W. Christenson, Esq.
Rel S. Ambrozy, Esq. §
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq.
Cormac T. Connor, Esq.
Richard D. Kirk, Esq.
Mark H. Krietzman, Esq.
Valerie W. Ho, Esq.
Steve P. Hassid, Esq.
Anne Shea Gaza, Esq.
Frederick L. Cottrell IH, Esq.
Tracy R. Roman, Esq.
Scott R. Miller, Esq.
Jeffrey B. Bove, Esq.
Jaclyn M. Mason, Esq.
l[
l
ta


ll
li
l
l
§
525633

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 552

Filed 03/08/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 552

Filed 03/08/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 552

Filed 03/08/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 552

Filed 03/08/2007

Page 4 of 4