Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 531 Filed O3/O2/2007 Page 1 of 3 *
Rica-|AR1;>s, LAYTON 6. FINGER
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATICN
ONE RODNEY SQUARE i
FRE¤ER¤c:i< L. C¤TrRE|.|.. III 920 NORTH KING STREET DIHEW DIM- E
DRECTOR Wu.MnNe·r0N, DELAWARE react <3¤Z>65¤·75¤9 I
(BOE) SEI-7 700 [email protected]
FAX (soar ess-77on g
www.R1. F. ::0 M T
H March 2, 2007 Q
BY E-MAIL & HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
BLANK ROME LLP
Chase Manhattan Center
l20l Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE l980l ;
Re: LG.Philrps LCD C0., Ltd. v. ViewSonic Corp., et al., C.A. No. 04-343-JJF
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
At the February 21, 2007 hearing, Your Honor indicated that you were inclined to strike
Exhibit E to LPL’s motion to compel technical documents, which consists of confidential
deposition excerpts from the 05-292-JJF case. Your Honor then noted that the issue might not be
ripe for consideration, however, because the Tatung Defendants had not filed a formal motion to
strike. Since that hearing, LPL has withdrawn Exhibit E (presumably because it recognizes that
that filing was improper). However, the Tatung Defendants respectfully submit that the mere
withdrawal of Exhibit E is insufficient to address LPL’s violations of various Protective Orders
entered in cases pending between the parties.] The Tatung Defendants hereby move to strike Q
LPL’s motion to compel dated J anuary 24, 2007. The letter brief, which discloses and describes A
in detail the confidential excerpts attached as Exhibit E, should be stricken for the same reasons -
that Exhibit E was withdrawn.
As Your Honor is aware, several cases involving LPL and the Tatung Defendants are
pending, including LPL v. Tatung Company, Case No. 05—292—JJF in the Delaware District . p
Court and LPL v. Tatung Company, Case No. CV—02-6775-CBM in the Central District of ,
Califomia (the "other cases"). Protective Orders have been issued in both of those cases. (Exs. A
A and B.) Paragraph l(a) of the Protective Order in the 05-292-]] F case provides: "[e]ach party
and all persons bound by the terms of this Order shall use any information or document governed
by this Order only in connection with the prosecution or defense of the above captioned action,
except by consent of all of the parties or order of the Court." Paragraph l(a) of the Protective
' Violations of the Protective Order in this case are detailed in the Tatung Defendant’s
February 20, 2007 letter to Your Honor.
RLF1-3122035-1

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 531 Filed O3/O2/2007 Page 2 of 3
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti T
March 2, 2007 j
Page 2 —
Order in the CV~02—6775-CBM case provides: "[e]ach party and all persons bound by the terms
of this Order shall use any information or document governed by this Order only in connection
with the prosecution or defense of the above captioned action(s) and the pending arbitration
proceedings. .. except by consent of all of the parties or orders of the Court." Under the terms of
those Protective Orders, the use or disclosure of confidential material requires the consent of all
of the parties or an order ofthe Court.
LPL has violated the Protective Orders on at least two occasions by improperly using
confidential infomation produced by the Tatung Defendants in the other cases for purposes of
this litigation. ln its letter to Your Honor dated January 24, 2007, LPL references, discusses, and
attaches as an exhibit excerpts of deposition testimony from the 05—292—J}F case. Although LPL i
has since withdrawn that exhibit, the bare fact remains that counsel for LPL clearly have i
reviewed and used confidential materials for this other case, unilaterally, without the consent of
the other parties, and without an order from the Court allowing such use. Moreover, the letter T
itself] which LPL has not withdrawn and which thus remains filed in the public record, describes
and discloses the confidential information in detail. The Tatung Defendants respectfully request
that Your Honor strike the letter from the record. T
This is not the only instance in which LPL has improperly used confidential materials
produced in other cases. ln a letter dated December 15, 2006, LPL admits that it reviewed a S
confidential document produced in the CV-02—6775—CBl\/I case for purposes of a 1neet-and-
confer in this case. (See Ex. C.) In that same letter, counsel for LPL wrongly contends that "all
parties agreed” to "advise each other of discrepancies between documents produced in this case
and those produced in California? (Ex. C at page 2.) The Tatung Defendants have not entered
into any such agreement, and LPL cannot produce any evidence of this purported arrangement.
In fact, when LPL sought the consent of the Tatung Defendants and Viewsonic to import
discovery from the other cases into this case, the Tatung Defendants made clear to LPL that they
could not consent to this arrangement because 1) LPL had not obtained consent from the other
parties in the other cases and 2) cormsel for the Tatung Defendants in this case were not involved
in the 05-292-J JF case, and therefore are barred from having access to the confidential materials
and deposition transcripts from that case and could not evaluate whether those materials are even I
relevant in this case. (Ex. D, letter dated February l, 2007.) Because LPL sought the Tatung p
Defendants’ consent to use discovery from the other cases, it clearly knew that absent such T
consent or a Court order, it could not use that discovery in connection with this case. In fact, T
LPL expressly acknowledged that it would have to seek an order from the Court on this issue and T
represented that it would do so. (Ex. D at page 2.) Ultimately, however, LPL did not seek such T
an order, but instead unilaterally reviewed, used and disclosed the confidential information
anyway.
R.LFl-3l22035—l i

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document 531 Filed O3/O2/2007 Page 3 of 3 g
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti E
March 2, 2007 .
Page 3 j
At this point, the extent and scope of LPL’s violations of the Protective Orders remain
unclear. Given LPL’s admitted improper use and disclosure of confidential infonnation in this
case, the Tatung Defendants respectfully request that Your Honor strike the January 24, 2007 Z
letter nom the record and require LPL to furnish a list detailing: (1) which confidential Q
documents from the other cases have been viewed by LPL’s counsel in this ease; (2) which i
confidential deposition transcripts from the other cases have been viewed by LPL’s counsel in ¤
this case; and (3) the names of those individuals who had and have access to confidential
documents and information produced in the other cases. The Tatung Defendants further request
that this list be verified. Without such information, it will not be possible to fashion an 3
appropriate remedy to address LPL’s violations of the Protective Orders.
l Respectfully,
,1/) Z, &·é·LW» -=·~ R
I
Frederick L. Cottrell, lll
· (#2555) j
FLC,III/afg
Enclosures Q
cc: Clerk of Court (via CM/ECF) =
Richard Kirk, Esquire (via electronic mail) i
Cormac T. Connor, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Lora Brzezynski, Esquire (via electronic mail) P
Mark Krietzman, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Scott R. Miller, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Jeffrey B. Bove, Esquire (via electronic mail) no
nrri-31220354 T

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 531

Filed 03/02/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 531

Filed 03/02/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 531

Filed 03/02/2007

Page 3 of 3