Free Memorandum in Opposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 437-6 Filed O2/O2/2007 Page1 of 4

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF me ent 437-6L Filed O2/O2/2007 Page 2 of 4
Albany New YOl'k
Atlanta & Aldr1dg€I'LP Philadelphia
Brussels Attorneys at Law San Diego
D 1900 K Street, NW • Washington, DC 20006-1108 San Francisco
E""' Tel: 202.4%.7500 • Fax; 202.4%.7756
Los Angeles www.mCke¤¤al0ng.C0m Washington, D.C.
CASS W. CHRISTENSON EMAu. ADDRESS
(202) 496-7218 [email protected]
January 30, 2007
VIA E-MA11, AND U.S. MAIL
Scott R. Miller, Esq.
Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz, LLP
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3150
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Frank E. Merideth, Jr., Esq.
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400 East
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Re: LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. v. Tatung, et al.; Civil Action No. 04-343 (JJF)
Dear Scott and Frank:
l write to respond to your recent letters and emails concerning deposition scheduling for
defendants’ witnesses. Yesterday, Frank and I discussed these issues concerning Tatung and
Tatung America. Unfortunately, Scott again declined to discuss these issues with me by phone
despite my efforts to speak with him.
With respect to LPL’s depositions, we are in receipt of the new deposition notices for the
inventors. As Frank and I discussed yesterday, LPL’s witnesses will be deposed in Washington,
D.C. and defendants’ witnesses will be deposed in McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP’s Los
Angeles office. Accordingly, we assume that the Delaware location in ViewSonic’s recent
deposition notices directed to LPL is moot. As previously noted, we expect that LPL’s
depositions will begin in late February in Washington. As you already know, however, and as
the parties have raised with the Special Master, we disagree concerning the amount of time for
which the inventors may be deposed in this case. We also received today deposition notices for
separate Rule 30(b)(6) depositions of LPL. As we have previously discussed, we intend to
produce witnesses once, not multiple times. Accordingly, we oppose any new effort to take
separate Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. We also object to the separate, arbitrary dates in the
deposition notices.

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 437-6 Filed O2/O2/2007 Page 3 of 4
Scott R. Miller, Esq.
Frank E. Merideth, Jr., Esq.
January 30, 2007
Page 2
My understanding is that the defendants each have agreed to begin producing witnesses
promptly, and before LPL’s depositions begin. We intend to depose witnesses on consecutive
dates to the extent possible, thus reducing the number of trips required for the depositions.
Because different attorneys will be involved for the technical depositions and other depositions
of defendants’ witnesses, we would like to schedule the depositions so that technical witnesses
are grouped together and other witnesses are grouped together. We also intend to depose Rule
30(b)(6) designees after we have deposed witnesses who are testifying only in an individual
capacity. Further, we need to receive the outstanding discovery that LPL is seeking so that we
can prepare for and complete the depositions. Given our approaching March 30 deadline, we
need to begin depositions as soon as possible, and to receive all additional documents and things
as soon as possible and well in advance of the defendants’ depositions.
Frank confirmed yesterday that Tatung America’s witnesses can be deposed in February
(specifically including, for example, the week of February 19). Frank also informed me
yesterday that Tatung prefers to begin depositions after March 1, as February 28 is a national
holiday in Taiwan (Taiwan National Day). We discussed the possibility of deposing some of
Tatung’s witnesses the week of March 5 and then completing remaining Tatung depositions
later. Although we did not reach any agreements concerning dates for Tatung’s depositions
yesterday, our discussion was a starting point. As I explained to Frank, however, we need to
reach a global schedule for all depositions and, therefore, we need to know ViewSonic’s witness
availability. We hope we can resolve the schedule with you. If not, we intend to pursue our
pending motion to compel depositions as proposed. With respect to our proposed deposition
schedule (Appendix A to LPL’s January 26 motion to compel) Scott stated yesterday that Ms.
Wang is not available on February 20 and "several other" unspecified dates "are problematic."
ViewSonic has not yet proposed any altemative dates or addressed availability concerning other
proposed dates.
Please let us know as soon as possible whether Tatung, Tatung America, and ViewSonic
would be interested in depositions the following weeks, which we are circulating for discussion
purposes and subject to our pending motion to compel depositions and schedule:
Week of Februagy 19
Depositions of Bryan Lin, Sally Wang, Andrew Sun, Vivian Liu, and Robert Ranucci.
We understand that Andrew Sun will testify as one of the two Tatung America Rule 30(b)(6)
designees and that Sally Wang, Bryan Lin, Vivian Liu, and Robert Ranucci will not testify as
Rule 30(b)(6) designees. LPL requests immediate notification if any of these witnesses will
require interpreters and if LPL’s understanding concerning Rule 30(b)(6) designees is incorrect.
Week of March 5
Depositions of Kevin Ho, Jackson Chang, Hsi-Ling (Jamie) Yang, S.Y. Tsai, and Huang
Chin-min. We understand that none of these witnesses will testify as Rule 30(b)(6) designees.

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 437-6 Filed O2/O2/2007 Page 4 of 4
Scott R. Miller, Esq.
Frank E. Merideth, Jr., Esq.
January 30, 2007
Page 3
LPL requests immediate notification if any of these witnesses will require interpreters and if
LPL’s understanding conceming Rule 30(b)(6) designees is incorrect.
Week of March 26
Depositions of Peter Farzin, Oliver Shih, Tsyr-Huey (Vincent) Liu, Jeff Volpe, and
Tommy Jue. We understand that Peter Farzin will testify as one of the two Tatung America
Rule 30(b)(6) designees, that Oliver Shih and Tsyr-Huey (Vincent) Liu will testify as Tatung’s
only Rule 30(b)(6) designees and that Jeff Volpe and Tommy Jue will testify as ViewSonic’s
only Rule 30(b)(6) designees. LPL requests immediate notification if any of these witnesses will
require interpreters and if LPL’s understanding conceming Rule 30(b)(6) designees is incorrect.
We provide this potential scheduling approach to facilitate our discussions and to
continue LPL’s efforts to resolve our dispute on deposition scheduling. Please respond as soon
as possible.
if M
Very tml;} yo , if
ples qlgq: g * /1 J
Cass W;T'Christenson
CWC:ea
cc: Richard D. Kirk, Esq. (via e-mail)
Mark Krietzman, Esq. (via e—mail)
Valerie W. Ho, Esq. (via e-mail)
Jong P. Hong, Esq. (via e—maii)
Steve P. Hassid, Esq. (via e-mail)
Anne Shea Gaza, Esq. (via e-mail)
Frederick L. Cottrell, III, Esq. (via e-mail)
Manuel Nelson, Esq. (via c-mail)
Tracy R. Roman, Esq. (via e-mail)
Jeffrey B. Bove, Esq. (via e-mail)
Jaclyn M. Mason., Esq. (via e-mail)

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 437-6

Filed 02/02/2007

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 437-6

Filed 02/02/2007

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 437-6

Filed 02/02/2007

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 437-6

Filed 02/02/2007

Page 4 of 4