Rice-maps, LAvrc>N Gt F1r~1
ONE RODNEZY SQUARE
920 Ncnnrr-i Kites Srnzrzr
ANNE SHEA Gm, wnirmmerou, Deutwana team e.am~ oai.
(cna) es 1-7 700 ‘i;“:f:Cc§F?J;;@i4g
F'Ax {soar aswzvot
WWW..$QLF~COM
March 8, 2007
BY Ii)-·i\/IAIL & HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
BLANK ROME LLP
Chase Manhattan Center
1201 Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801
Rc: LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd v. ViewSonic Corp., er cri., CA. No. 04—343—.l.lF
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
Tatung Company and Tatung Company of America, Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants")
hereby oppose LG Philips LCD Co., Ltd..’s ("LPL") motion for protective order to terminate or,
alternatively, to limit any further deposition of Mr. Jong Hwan Kim (the “1T10llOI`lâ€). Mr. Kim is
a key witness in this case. He is one ofthe two inventors ofthe ‘6-41 and ‘7l8 patents that are at
issue in this litigation, as well as other patents related to flat screen mounting technology. He is
the manager of LPL’s patent team. He was also an employee of LG Electronics’ LCD Division
and is an employee of both LG LCD and LPL. Further, Mr- Kim is designated as plaintiff s
30(l¤)(6) witness for multiple topics under three of the four Notices of Deposition served by the
Defendants in this case.
Judge liarnan and Your Honor obviously recognized the importance of such a witness by
allocating 2l hours of deposition time for each inventor and l0.5 hours of time for each 30(b)(6)
Deposition Notice. Notwithstanding plaintiff s motion, it is the Defendants, not the plaintiff,
who have the responsibility for determining how to use their time with Mr. Kim. What is clear
is that the Defendants must use their time effectively to determine all of the relevant information
in Mr. Kirn’s possession so that it can be used at trial. ln addition, the Defendants must make a
record to insure Mr. Kim cannot give trial testimony in areas about which he professes in his
deposition to have no knowledge or recollection. However, Defendants cannot use, and indeed
have not used, a disproportionate amount of their time on one witness or they will run out of time
for others. I-low Degtendants go about accomplishing this task should not be second guessed by
plaintiff so long as the time parameters set by the Court are honored and the witness is not
Rllil-3l2·t0l3—2 ·
Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 551 Filed O3/08/2007 Page 2 of 3
The Honorable Vincent J Poppiti
March 8, 2007
Page ,2
harassed or abused,
At best, plaintiff" s motion is simply a thinly veiled attempt, yet again, to try and have
Your I-lonor reconsider the time allocations established by Judge Farnan and clarified by Your
Honor. It is respectfully suggested that Your Honor should again reject this latest attempt to end
the deposition and, indeed, grant Defendants’ motion to instruct Mr. Kim to prepare adequately
for his deposition. See Letter to Special Master Foppiti from Frederick L, Cottrell, Ill, dated
March l, 2007,
Plaintiff also tries to resurrect, yet again, their argument that the Court’s time allocations
for deponents does not count if the topics for which the deponent is offering testimony overlap.
This latest attempt for reconsideration is improper because no new facts or law are implicated.
Lament over a prior ruling is not a proper basis for a motion for reconsideration,
Moreover, the primary authorities cited and relied upon by plaintiff in bringing its motion
support the proposition that a party seeking additional time beyond that allocated by the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure or the Court has the burden of demonstrating that the additional time is
required. Defendants agree with that rule. Unfortunately for plaintilh that is not the issue posed
by its motion. Indeed, the problem with plaintiffs argument is that the time allocation for Mr.
Kim is nowhere close to expiring.
Plaintiff’s claims that Mr. Kim is being °‘punished" and harassed are sirnilariy misguided.
As recognized by the Court’s allocation of time, a deponent, particularly an inventor’s,
background information is important and must be fleshed out at his deposition. This is
particularly true in this instance since Mr, Kim, an administrator in the LG Electronics patent
department with lackluster credentials, nevertheless claims to have sua spome conceived of a
"design around" for mounting technology subject to LG Electronics Development and
Manufacturing Agreement with Digital Equipment Company.
Plaintiff’ s argument that Mr, Kim was harassed because he was asked to explain who
owned the patents—in—suit is hardly an accurate assessment of the questions asked and testimony
provided The reality is that Mr. Kim was woefully unprepared to address this key issue on
which the plaintiff has the burden of proof. Defendants, for their part, were obligated to
thoroughly question this witness notwithstanding the fact that he had clearly failed to adequately
prepare to provide testimony on this 30(b)(6) topic.;
‘ Plaintifi"s allegation that Mr. Kim’s time was wasted by asking where his desk was in
relationship to that of his co—inventor, Mr. Cho, is equally specious. Since neither inventor has
been able to explain how or why they teamed up to make this important discovery, questions
regarding their relationship are important,
rur 1-3 124013-2
Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 551 Filed O3/08/2007 Page 3 of 3
The Honorable Vincent 3.. Poppiti
March 8, 2007
Page 3
Finally, plaintiff’ s attempt to trivialize the serious shortcomings of Mr. Kim’s technical
expertise and the obviousness of his purported invention are unavailingr Defendants have the
burden of proof to show invalidity and are obliged to examine prior art with the witness (even if
that prior art was intentionally omitted from the patent application and only discovered by the
Exarniner in the course of his review). That is exactly what the Defendants have attempted to
explore with Mr. Kim, but they have been hampered by his lack of knowledge and preparation
on this and other topics.
Defendants are not asking for additional time with Mr. Kim to obtain general testimony
on undisclosed topics. Rather, Defendants seek merely to complete their deposition of Mr. Kim
on the 30(b)(6) topics for which he was unprepared in the remaining time allotted for his
individual and 30(b)(6) depositions. Far from being required to pay for Mr. Kim’s unilateral
decision to return to Korea, Defendants should be compensated by plaintiff for the time
unnecessarily spent questioning the witness on subjects for which he was unprepared or which
could be explained by documents that were requested by Defendants, but that plaintiff chose not
to produce.
Defendants request that Your Honor not reconsider the rulings made by Judge Farnan and
You earlier because no new facts or law or good cause has been shown. Further, because the
arguments supporting this motion are groundless, the motion should be denied and Mr. Kim
should be ordered to appear in the United States to complete his individual and 30(b)(6)
deposition on a date and a time agreed upon by the parties.
Respecttiilly,
Anne Shea Gaza
(#4093)
ASG/afg
cc: Clerk of Court (via CM/ECP)
Richard Kirk, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Cormac "l`. Connor, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Mark Krietzman, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Scott R. Miller, Esquire (via electronic mail)
leffrey B. Bove, Esquire (via electronic mail)
RLFl—3l2¢l0l3·2
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 551
Filed 03/08/2007
Page 1 of 3
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 551
Filed 03/08/2007
Page 2 of 3
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 551
Filed 03/08/2007
Page 3 of 3
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms