Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 1 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 2 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 3 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 4 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 5 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 6 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 7 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 8 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 9 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Manuel C. Nelson
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 10 of 116
Scott Miller Thursday, January 11, 2007 11:20 AM 'Sharon Trent'; Connor, Cormac; 'Christenson, Cass'; Dick Kirk [email protected]; [email protected]; Cottrell, Frederick; Jaclyn M. Mason; Jeff Bove; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Nancy Phillips RE: LG. Philips LCD Co., Ltd v. Viewsonic et al. (C.A. 04-343)
Counsel: The letter just circulated to the Special Master contains a misstatement in footnote 1. It wrongly states "Originally, ViewSonic insisted that the Special Master should attend each deposition of LPL's witnesses." ViewSonic never insisted that the Special Master attend each deposition of LPL's witnesses. Rather, ViewSonic argued that the LPL depositions should take place in Delaware because Delaware is the forum chosen by LPL for this case and so that the Special Master could attend the depositions if necessary and appropriate. As this statement was made by LPL, we request that you immediately correct the record on this point. Scott. Scott R. Miller Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP 355 South Grand Ave. Suite 3150 Los Angeles, CA 90071 DID: 213-787-2510 Fax: 213-687-0498 Cell: 562-618-7771 [email protected] www.cblh.com -----Original Message----From: Sharon Trent [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 8:59 AM To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Cottrell, Frederick; Jaclyn M. Mason; Jeff Bove; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Scott Miller; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Connor, Cormac Subject: LG. Philips LCD Co., Ltd v. Viewsonic et al. (C.A. 04-343) Dear Special Master Poppiti: Please see the attached letter dated January 11, 2007 from Ashley Stitzer regarding depositions. A hard copy of this letter will be hand delivered to your office this afternoon. A hard copy will also be delivered to local counsel.
Sharon P. Trent, Paralegal The Bayard Firm 222 Delaware Avenue Wilmington, Delaware 19801 Direct: 302-429-4259
1
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 11 of 116
Fax: 302-658-6395 Website: www.bayardfirm.com
2
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 12 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 13 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 14 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 15 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 16 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 17 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 18 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 19 of 116
Wells Fargo Center South Tower, Suite 3150 355 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles CA 90071 TEL (213) 787 2500 FAX (213) 687 0498
Manuel Nelson
(213) 787-2515 (213) 687-0498 EMAIL [email protected] REPLY TO Los Angeles Office
FAX TEL
The Nemours Building 1007 North Orange Street P.O. Box 2207 Wilmington, DE 19899 TEL (302) 658 9141 FAX (302) 658 5614 1990 M Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington DC 20036 TEL (202) 331 7111 FAX (202) 293 6229
Via Email and First Class Mail January 16, 2007 Cass W. Christenson McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1900 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Re: Dear Counsel: Frank E. Merideth, Jr.
Greenberg Traurig LLP 2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 400E Santa Monica, CA 90404
WEB
www.cblh.com
LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. v. ViewSonic Corp., et al. USDC, Delaware, C.A. No. 04-343-JJF
I write to inform you that counsel for ViewSonic will not be available to meet and confer on January 17, 2007, as previously scheduled, regarding deposition issues. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. We suggest that the parties meet and confer on January 19, 2007, after the hearing and status conference scheduled with the Special Master is completed. If that is not convenient, we suggest conferring early the following week, January 22 or 23, at 1:30 p.m. EST (10:30 a.m. PST). Please let us know your availability. I would like to take this opportunity observe that, despite our obligations as lawyers, we continue to have surprising difficulties with the meet and confer process. In an attempt to reduce or eliminate some of the misunderstandings that arise or differing recollections that can form during our meet and confers, I suggest we consider conducting future meet and confers in writing, or, alternatively, with a court reporter present. We are interested in your view(s) on these alternative proposals.
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 20 of 116
January 16, 2007 Page 2 Sincerely,
Manuel Nelson cc: Rel S. Ambrozy, Esq. (via email) Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. (via email) Richard D. Kirk, Esq. (via email) Mark H. Krietzman, Esq. (via email) Valerie W. Ho, Esq. (via email) Jong P. Hong, Esq. (via email) Steve P. Hassid, Esq. (via email) Anne Shea Gaza, Esq. (via email) Frederick L. Cottrell III, Esq. (via email) Scott R. Miller, Esq. (via email) Tracy R. Roman, Esq. (via email) Jeffrey B. Bove, Esq. (via email) Jaclyn M. Mason, Esq. (via email)
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 21 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 22 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 23 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 24 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 25 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 26 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 27 of 116
Wells Fargo Center South Tower, Suite 3150 355 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles CA 90071 TEL (213) 787 2500 FAX (213) 687 0498
Manuel Nelson
(213) 787-2515 (213) 687-0498 EMAIL [email protected] REPLY TO Los Angeles Office
FAX TEL
The Nemours Building 1007 North Orange Street P.O. Box 2207 Wilmington, DE 19899 TEL (302) 658 9141 FAX (302) 658 5614 1990 M Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington DC 20036 TEL (202) 331 7111 FAX (202) 293 6229
Via Email January 18, 2007 Cass W. Christenson McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1900 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Re: LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. v. ViewSonic Corp., et al. USDC, Delaware, C.A. No. 04-343-JJF
WEB
www.cblh.com
Dear Mr. Christenson: Thank you for your January 17, 2007 letter regarding depositions. This letter responds to some of the issues identified in your letter. We are still waiting to hear Tatung's position regarding meeting and conferring via letters or with a court reporter. Unless we are convinced otherwise by Tatung or the Special Master, at this time, ViewSonic believes the parties would be best served and efficiencies improved by implementing our suggested meet and confer procedure. Thus, we have addressed below deposition issues raised in your letter and will promptly send you correspondence on other issues. Please provide us with any further correspondence regarding the below issues or any other issues you believe need to be addressed. Contrary to the suggestion in your letter, ViewSonic has not refused to produce any witnesses for depositions. LPL, not ViewSonic, has refused to participate in deposition discovery. LPL still refuses to set a single deposition date. LPL's refusal to provide a witness within a reasonable time forced ViewSonic to file a motion to compel LPL to participate in deposition discovery, and for a protective order, which motion is held in abeyance and remains pending. ViewSonic is not obligated to produce any witness for a deposition until its motion for a protective order is ruled upon. Notwithstanding ViewSonic's motion for a protective order, and without waiving its right to invoke the protection provided by that motion, ViewSonic will take the lead, once again, to try and move things forward in this case. Regarding LPL's request to take the depositions of ViewSonic witnesses in an order similar to the order the witnesses were noticed by LPL, ViewSonic anticipates LPL will be flexible with this request. ViewSonic expects to identify, by Tuesday, January 23, 2007, available dates for Sally Wang and Vivian Liu, two of the first three ViewSonic witnesses noticed by LPL for depositions. As the parties previously discussed, Michael Zapka, no longer works for ViewSonic. ViewSonic is trying to determine Mr. Zapka's current contact information. ViewSonic will provide dates for Robert Ranucci and Jeff Volpe after the dates for the intervening Tatung witnesses have been set, which will accommodate LPL's request to take the depositions in the order originally noticed by LPL.
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 28 of 116
January 18, 2007 Page 2 As we have indicated, Tommy Jue is in Taiwan. ViewSonic anticipates that Mr. Jue likely will be designated as a 30(b)(6) witness. Thus, we will produce Mr. Jue closer in time to the 30(b)(6) depositions of ViewSonic. If Mr. Jue is selected as a ViewSonic 30(b)(6) designee, he will be produced in that capacity immediately after his individual deposition. With respect to the remaining ViewSonic 30(b)(6) designees, in accordance with your suggestion that depositions of the defendants be taken in the order noticed by LPL, ViewSonic will preliminarily designate corporate representatives for the 30(b)(6) topics after the depositions of ViewSonic's witnesses have been completed. To the extent this requires local witnesses to be produced a second time, ViewSonic will bear that burden to accommodate LPL's request to depose the defendants' witnesses in the order noticed. While on the subject of scheduling 30(b)(6) depositions, as indicated above, LPL still refuses to set any date for a 30(b)(6) deposition. LPL cannot reasonably expect to obtain all of the 30(b)(6) testimony LPL seeks without producing LPL 30(b)(6) designees at fair and reasonable times. Please provide a firm date when LPL is willing to produce at least its first 30(b)(6) witness to be deposed. Your letter summarized some of the prior discussions regarding time limits for 30(b)(6) depositions. We understand that LPL does not agree with any suggestion offered thus far by ViewSonic regarding time limits for deposing 30(b)(6) designees. What is not clear is LPL's view regarding time limits for deposing 30(b)(6) designees. Please clarify LPL's proposal regarding time limits for deposing 30(b)(6) designees. As indicated in your letter, during our January 8 conference, LPL suggested that the parties might be able to agree that certain 30(b)(6) topics could be more suitable for expert witness discovery. Before pursuing this further, ViewSonic needs to know whether LPL will agree not to present any employee, officer or director of LPL (including any inventor) at trial to testify about any 30(b)(6) topic that the parties agree at this stage is more suitable for an expert witness. Without such an agreement, ViewSonic is unlikely to forego any 30(b)(6) topics it noticed. LPL suggested that the noticed time frames could be uniformly narrowed for 30(b)(6) topics concerning financial information and/or damages related issues. ViewSonic has considered LPL's suggestion. ViewSonic is entitled to discovery it seeks regarding obviousness of the alleged invention claimed in the patents in suit, including evidence related to satisfaction of any long-felt need(s) in the industry related to different mounting techniques, which implicates LPL's sales of flat panel products prior the date of the invention of the patents in suit. Consequently, ViewSonic cannot presently agree to LPL's proposed date restriction. With respect to the discussion in your January 17, 2007 letter regarding Topic 11 in ViewSonic's 30(b)(6) deposition notice of LPL, there are several points that warrant clarification. First, Topic 11 encompasses various issues, including the knowledge of the inventors and the patent attorneys of the scope and content of certain prior art references. These issues are related not only to inequitable conduct, but also invalidity, unclean hands, patent misuse, as well as other issues. ViewSonic's Third Defense pleads invalidity. ViewSonic's Fifth Defense pleads unclean hands, which includes patent misuse. ViewSonic's Eighth Defense clearly implicates the possibility that the evidence may give rise to other defenses, including inequitable conduct. Moreover, the more lenient Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, not Rule 9, applies to pleading requirements for the defenses of invalidity, unclean hands and patent misuse. Thus, ViewSonic cannot agree not to pursue Topic 11 as requested in your letter.
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 29 of 116
January 18, 2007 Page 3
On a matter related to these defenses, during our January 8, 2007 teleconference, LPL agreed that it would provide the bates number of the agreement with DEC, provided this agreement was produced in this case. Have you been able to determine whether the DEC agreement was produced in this case? If not, please produce a copy of the agreement with DEC. With respect to LPL's position that the Scheduling Order permits the two inventor of the patents in suit to be deposed for 10.5 hours each for a combined total of 21 hours for both inventors, that is not consistent with the most reasonable reading of ΒΆ 4(d) of the Court's Scheduling Order, which provides that no fact witness or 30(b)(6) designee "for whom English is [sic, not] their first language shall be deposed for more than 10.5 hours." This sentence limits depositions of non-English speakers to 10.5 hours. If the deposition of each inventor were to be limited to 10.5 hours, there would be no need for the next sentence in the Scheduling Order: "Notwithstanding the foregoing limitations, the inventors of the patents in suit may be deposed for up to 21 hours total, which shall be consecutive." The most reasonable interpretation of these provisions permits each inventor to be deposed for up to 21 hours during 3 consecutive days. This interpretation is consistent with the position advocated by ViewSonic in connection with the 26(f) report submitted to the Court. Paragraph 4(d) of the Scheduling Order incorporates ViewSonic's position. With respect to LPL's desire to incorporate deposition testimony from another Delaware case (no. 05-292), which in turn incorporates eight cases, that proposal was addressed in Scott Miller's January 16, 2007 letter to you. We will respond separately to the remaining issues related to specific noticed topics identified in your letter. Sincerely,
Manuel Nelson cc: Rel S. Ambrozy, Esq. (via email) Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. (via email) Richard D. Kirk, Esq. (via email) Mark H. Krietzman, Esq. (via email) Frank E. Merideth, Jr., Esq. (via email) Valerie W. Ho, Esq. (via email) Jong P. Hong, Esq. (via email) Steve P. Hassid, Esq. (via email) Anne Shea Gaza, Esq. (via email) Frederick L. Cottrell III, Esq. (via email) Scott R. Miller, Esq. (via email) Tracy R. Roman, Esq. (via email) Jeffrey B. Bove, Esq. (via email) Jaclyn M. Mason, Esq. (via email)
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 30 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 31 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 32 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 33 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Manuel C. Nelson
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Manuel C. Nelson
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 34 of 116
Tuesday, January 23, 2007 11:09 AM Christenson, Cass; Ambrozy, Rel; Brzezynski, Lora; [email protected] 'Mark Krietzman'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]'; Steve Hassid; 'Gaza, Ann Shea'; '[email protected]'; Scott Miller; 'Tracy Roman'; Jeff Bove; Jaclyn M. Mason; Nancy Phillips LPL v. ViewSonic, 04-343 (DE)
Attachments: 2007-01-23 MN letter to LPL.pdf Please see attached. Regards, Manuel
2/2/2007
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 35 of 116
Wells Fargo Center South Tower, Suite 3150 355 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles CA 90071 TEL (213) 787 2500 FAX (213) 687 0498
Manuel Nelson
(213) 787-2515 (213) 687-0498 EMAIL [email protected] REPLY TO Los Angeles Office
FAX TEL
The Nemours Building 1007 North Orange Street P.O. Box 2207 Wilmington, DE 19899 TEL (302) 658 9141 FAX (302) 658 5614 1990 M Street, NW, Suite 800 Washington DC 20036 TEL (202) 331 7111 FAX (202) 293 6229
Via Email and First Class Mail January 23, 2007 Cass W. Christenson McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP 1900 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 Re: LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. v. ViewSonic Corp., et al. USDC, Delaware, C.A. No. 04-343-JJF
WEB
www.cblh.com
Dear Mr. Christenson: This letter responds to the issues raised in your January 17, 2007 letter regarding topics 1(d), 4, 5(b), 7(a)-(b), 8(a)-(b), 10(a)-(b), 13(i), 13(q), 13(v), 15(a), 21, 23, 24(d), 24(h), 25(d) and 27(c) of ViewSonic's four notices of 30(b)(6) depositions of LPL.1 Topics 1(d), 21, and 23 In connection with topics 1(d), 21, and 23, LPL asks the defendants to agree not "to ask LPL questions concerning the extent to which LPL's products use the ... technology" covered by the patents in suit. Jan. 17, letter, at 3. ViewSonic cannot agree. As discussed previously, most recently in the January 19 conference with the Special Master, LPL's use of the technology in the patents in suit implicates noninfringement, invalidity (including but not limited to obviousness factors), and damages. Topics 1(d), 21, and 23 clearly contemplate questions concerning the extent to which LPL's products use the technology covered by the patents in suit, and just as clearly are not limited to such scope. Topics 4 and 5(b) During the January 8, 2007 telephone conference between the parties, consistent with LPL's December 13, 2006 Objection and Response, LPL indicated it was unclear what is meant by "statements" as used in topics 4 and 5(b) of ViewSonic's deposition notice. LPL's objection also asserted that it was unclear to LPL which of multiple "statements" are intended to be addressed. Topic 4 is directed at the "statements" contained in documents bates numbered LPL01557 to LPL-01589, which appear to be invention disclosure statements related to the patents in suit. Topic 5(b) is directed at "statements" contained in the Amendment filed on or about January 17, 2001 in the prosecution of U.S. Patent Appl. No. 09/285,338, which issued as U.S. Patent No. 6,501,641, one of the patents in suit. We do not understand what is unclear to LPL about "statements." We note that there is no objection to "statements" in other topics (e.g., topic 5(a)). To move this matter forward, the term "statements" refers to at least, without limitation, all the information, positions,
1
My January 18, 2007 letter addressed the remaining issues in your January 17 letter.
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 36 of 116
January 23, 2007 Page 2 representations, or particulars communicated, contained or reflected in the referenced documents. LPL correctly notes that ViewSonic intends to depose LPL with respect to all of the statements found in the referenced documents. With respect to the fact that there are multiple statements in each document, that is not a valid or proper basis to object to the topics. Topics 7(a)-(b) and 10(a)-(b) LPL has suggested that topics 7(a)-(b) are duplicative of topics 10(a)-(b) and that the duplicative topics should be dropped. Although similar, these topics are not duplicative. For example, 7(b) includes within its scope agreements related to "an LCD, PDP, FED and/or LPL Product, which does or can perform or achieve one or more objects or advantages of the invention(s) disclosed in any of the Asserted Patents". 10(b) includes within its scope agreements related to "an LCD PDP, FED and/or any LPL Product, or any component thereof which incorporates or performs the subject matter and/or objects of the inventions disclosed and/or claimed in any of the Asserted Patents." Thus, although similar, topics 7(b) and 10(b) are not duplicative. Similarly, topic 10(a) is broader than 7(a), thus the topics are not duplicative. To the extent that LPL views topics 7(a) and 7(b) as subsumed within topics 10(a) and 10(b), ViewSonic will consider dropping topics 7(a) and 7(b) provided that LPL agrees to produce a witness who will address the full scope of topics 10(a) and 10(b). Topics 8(a)-(b) During the January 8, 2007 telephone conference between the parties, LPL inquired whether the defendants could be more specific regarding topics 8(a)-(b), and asserted that the word "communication" was unclear in topic 8(b). Topic 8(a) is directed to the preparation and prosecution of the patents in suit and all the counterparts to these patents. ViewSonic believes that 8(a) is quite clear. Topic 8(b) is directed to "communications" with any patent office or similar body concerning the patents in suit or any counterpart thereof, and any note or reports relating to any communication with any patent examiner. We don't understand what is unclear to LPL about "communications." We note that no objection was made to the use of "communication" in topics 14(e), 15(c), 24(b), 24(c), 24(j), 24(k), 25(d), 26(b), 26(c) and 27(d). Nevertheless, as with LPL's objection regarding "statements", to move matters forward, the term "communications" includes, without limitation, any impartation, transmission or interchange of information, positions, representations or particulars. Topic 13(i) During the January 8, 2007 telephone conference, LPL inquired what information topic 31(i) seeks and why defendants seek such information. As clearly worded, 13(i) seeks deposition testimony regarding actual, projected or desired return on investment (ROI) and all analyses related to or associated with the manufacture and/or sale of any LPL Product or Flat Panel Display Product using or capable of employing or embodying any invention disclosed or claimed in the Asserted Patents or any Counterpart thereof or any other patent LPL holds, claims to hold or licenses that relates to Mounting Technology (as the capitalized terms are defined in the notice). This is standard information sought in litigation, and is directed to factors related at least to invalidity (obviousness) and damages.
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 37 of 116
January 23, 2007 Page 3 Topic 13(q) During the January 8, 2007 telephone conference, LPL inquired what pricing information is sought by topic 13(q). As clearly worded, 13(q) seeks deposition testimony regarding LPL's pricing of, and price changes for, any LPL Product or Flat Panel Display Product using or capable of employing or embodying any invention disclosed or claimed in the Asserted Patents or any Counterpart thereof or any other patent LPL holds, claims to hold or licenses that relates to Mounting Technology (as the capitalized terms are defined in ViewSonic's deposition notice). As to LPL's inquiry regarding whether 13(q) seeks information that is different from "sales," it is unclear what other topic LPL refers to. In any event, 13(q) encompasses all aspects of pricing, including the bases or reasons for pricing or pricing changes. Topic 13(v) As LPL knows, topic 13(v) seeks deposition testimony related to market share information regarding LPL, each defendant, or any other entity that competes with any LPL Product or Flat Panel Display Product of any party, including any products that use any type of mounting, including front mounting, side mounting, or rear mounting, or any combination of mounting methods or techniques. With respect to LPL's assumption that all the parties have access to market share information including industry publications, this topic seeks LPL's position regarding market share, which alternative sources cannot provide. Topic 15(a) During the January 8, 2007 teleconference, LPL suggested that ViewSonic's topic 15(a) seeks information regarding unspecified relationships with unspecified companies or related entities. On the contrary, topic 15(a) seeks deposition testimony regarding corporate or business relationships or affiliations between LPL and LGE, Philips Electronics, American Panel Corporation, Universal Avionics, Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), any company affiliated with these entities, and any other entity in the United States that manufactures, sells or distributes LPL Products, Flat Panel Display Products and/or Mounting Technology (as the capitalized terms are defined in ViewSonic's deposition notice). Nothing more is necessary or required. Topic 24(d) During the January 8, 2007 teleconference, LPL asked what topic 24(d) seeks. Topic 24(d) seeks deposition testimony regarding "LPL's decision to file this action." ViewSonic does not understand what is unclear about this topic. The scope of this topic includes, but is not limited to, information related to what was done, who was involved, when certain acts were done, and why. Topic 24(h) During the January 8, 2007 teleconference, LPL asked what topic 24(h) seeks. Topic 24(h) seeks deposition testimony about LPL's patent policies, strategies, planning or practices, regarding patents relating to Mounting Technology, including but not limited to the patents in suit and any Counterpart thereof. The scope of this topic encompasses LPL's policies, strategies, planning or practices regarding filing and prosecuting patent applications, acquiring patents or patent applications from others, exploiting patents or patented technology, charging others with patent infringement, enforcing patents, licensing patents or patented technology, cross-licensing patents or patented technology, or marking products with patent numbers. Topic 25(d) During the January 8, 2007 telephone conference, LPL inquired as to what "communications" are referred to in topic 25(d). Topic 25(d) seeks deposition testimony
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 38 of 116
January 23, 2007 Page 4 regarding all communications with any third party regarding any claim or potential claim of infringement of any of the Asserted Patents and/or any Counterpart thereof (as the capitalized terms are defined in ViewSonic's deposition notice). To the extent LPL intended to ask what is meant by "communication" in topic 25(d), please refer to the response above regarding that inquiry in the discussion of topic 8(b). Topic 27(c) Your January 17 letter indicates that LPL does not understand what information is sought in topic 27(c) or how the topic is relevant. Topic 27(c) seeks deposition testimony regarding any products alleged or believed by LPL to fall, or which any person has advised LPL does or may fall, within the scope of any claim of any patent relating to Mounting Technology excluding the Asserted Patents and any Counterpart thereof (as the capitalized terms are defined in ViewSonic's deposition notice). As for relevance, this topic encompasses factors related to at least noninfringement, invalidity, and damages. Sincerely,
Manuel Nelson cc: Rel S. Ambrozy, Esq. (via email) Lora A. Brzezynski, Esq. (via email) Richard D. Kirk, Esq. (via email) Mark H. Krietzman, Esq. (via email) Frank E. Merideth, Jr., Esq. (via email) Valerie W. Ho, Esq. (via email) Steve P. Hassid, Esq. (via email) Anne Shea Gaza, Esq. (via email) Frederick L. Cottrell III, Esq. (via email) Scott R. Miller, Esq. (via email) Tracy R. Roman, Esq. (via email) Jeffrey B. Bove, Esq. (via email) Jaclyn M. Mason, Esq. (via email)
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 39 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Manuel C. Nelson
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments:
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 40 of 116
Christenson, Cass [[email protected]] Tuesday, January 23, 2007 1:47 PM [email protected]; Manuel C. Nelson Mark Krietzman; Scott Miller; [email protected]; Steve Hassid; Gaza, Ann Shea; [email protected]; Scott Miller; Tracy Roman; Jeff Bove; Jaclyn M. Mason; Nancy Phillips; Dick Kirk LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. v. Tatung Co., et al., C.A. No. 04-343 JJF -- January 23, 2007 Letter nelso001.PDF
nelso001.PDF (249 KB)
Gentlemen: Please see attached January 23, 2007 letter. Regards, Cass CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient or recipients. This e-mail may contain privileged attorney/client communications or work product. Any dissemination of this e-mail by anyone other than an intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies thereof from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attachments.
1
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 41 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 42 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 43 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 44 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 45 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Manuel C. Nelson
From: Sent: To: Cc: Scott Miller
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 46 of 116
Thursday, January 25, 2007 5:49 PM [email protected]; Ambrozy, Rel; Brzezynski, Lora; [email protected]; [email protected]; '[email protected]' Manuel C. Nelson; 'Tracy Roman'; Jaclyn M. Mason; Nancy Phillips
Subject: deposition scheduling Counsel: I have been able to confirm the following dates for depositions of the following ViewSonic witnesses at the McKenna Long office in Los Angeles: Tommy Jue - February 20 Sally Wang - March 2 Vivian Liu - March 22. We are checking on dates for the 2 other individual ViewSonic employees noticed by LPL, namely, Robert Ranucci and Jeff Volpe. As we advised you long ago, Mr. Zapka is no longer a ViewSonic employee. Please let me know ASAP if you wish to reserve these dates for these depositions as schedules can change. As for Mr. Jue, my understanding that he is assigned to Taiwan was erroneous. Regards, Scott.
Scott R. Miller Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP 355 South Grand Ave. Suite 3150 Los Angeles, CA 90071 DID: 213-787-2510 Fax: 213-687-0498 Cell: 562-618-7771 [email protected] www.cblh.com
2/2/2007
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 47 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Manuel C. Nelson
From: Sent: To: Cc:
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 48 of 116
Christenson, Cass [[email protected]] Friday, January 26, 2007 12:01 PM Scott Miller; Ambrozy, Rel; Brzezynski, Lora; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Manuel C. Nelson; Tracy Roman; Jaclyn M. Mason; Nancy Phillips
Subject: RE: deposition scheduling Scott: Thank you for your email last night. We cannot agree to your proposed dates. Your proposed dates ignore our prior discussions about avoiding substantial time gaps between depositions, as we will be traveling to California for these depositions. In addition, as we have discussed, we intend to depose Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses after individual depositions. Further, we understand that Mr. Jue will testify as a Rule 30(b)(6) designee, and, therefore, as we have stated before, we would like to take his individual deposition when we depose him as a Rule 30(b)(6) designee. Indeed, you previously agreed and took the position that individual and designee depositions should not be separate events for the same witness. We appreciate that you have finally responded to our many requests to set a deposition schedule. Unfortunately, your proposal is incomplete as it does not account for other depositions of ViewSonic witnesses, nor has Tatung provided deposition dates. Further, as stated above, your proposal is not workable. Although we have no choice but to file a motion to compel, we hope that your email signals a new willingness to finally discuss these issues with us. If so, please let me know what times next week you (and counsel for Tatung) are available to talk. Regards, Cass
From: Scott Miller [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:49 PM To: Christenson, Cass; Ambrozy, Rel; Brzezynski, Lora; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Manuel C. Nelson; Tracy Roman; Jaclyn M. Mason; Nancy Phillips Subject: deposition scheduling Counsel: I have been able to confirm the following dates for depositions of the following ViewSonic witnesses at the McKenna Long office in Los Angeles: Tommy Jue - February 20 Sally Wang - March 2 Vivian Liu - March 22. We are checking on dates for the 2 other individual ViewSonic employees noticed by LPL, namely, Robert Ranucci and Jeff Volpe. As we advised you long ago, Mr. Zapka is no longer a ViewSonic employee. Please let me know ASAP if you wish to reserve these dates for these depositions as schedules can change. As for Mr. Jue, my understanding that he is assigned to Taiwan was erroneous. Regards, Scott.
Scott R. Miller Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP 355 South Grand Ave.
2/2/2007
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Suite 3150 Los Angeles, CA 90071 DID: 213-787-2510 Fax: 213-687-0498 Cell: 562-618-7771 [email protected] www.cblh.com
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 49 of 116
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient or recipients. This e-mail may contain privileged attorney/client communications or work product. Any dissemination of this e-mail by anyone other than an intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies thereof from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attachments.
2/2/2007
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 50 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Manuel C. Nelson
From: Sent: To: Cc: Scott Miller Friday, January 26, 2007 2:05 PM
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 51 of 116
'Christenson, Cass'; Ambrozy, Rel; Brzezynski, Lora Manuel C. Nelson; Tracy Roman; Jaclyn M. Mason; James Heisman; Jeff Bove; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Nancy Phillips
Subject: RE: deposition scheduling Cass: Your recitation of ViewSonic's position only underscores the need that all such communications be conducted in writing or on the record. ViewSonic has never broadly "agreed" or taken the position that "individual and designee depositions should not be separate events for the same witness" as your email states. I did indicate that if ViewSonic was voluntarily agreeing to bring a witness from Taiwan to be deposed, we would expect that person's individual deposition to be followed by a deposition under Rule 30 (b)(6) so as to avoid multiple trips but only for such a witness. We have also expressed our willingness accede to your demand that we conduct the depositions of the LPL inventors in temporal proximity with a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition on topics for which LPL would put them forward as a designee. We have rejected the suggestion that a deponent appear simultaneously as an individual deponent and as a representative under Rule 30(b)(6), and continue to do so. I do not understand this to be a point of disagreement between the parties, as your message of today confirms that LPL expects to take depositions under Rule 30(b)(6) after it completes individual depositions. Please let me know if I have misunderstood your position on this issue. Other than as discussed above, we likewise have no agreement about avoiding substantial time between depositions. We have expressed a willingness to group depositions as best as we are able based on witness schedules to avoid unnecessary travel so long as that courtesy is reciprocated, and we remain willing to do so. We, of course, have no control over your actions should you choose to pursue this falsehood in front of the Special Master other than to correct the record and seek to recover our costs for your wrongful conduct. We are firmly resolute in our previously expressed position, however, that counsel for ViewSonic will not engage in discussions such as those you have mischaracterized without a contemporaneous written record of same. To that end, based on your email I understand that each of these witnesses are released from my offer for the dates specified. Once again, please let me know if I have misunderstood your position on this issue not later than close of business Monday, at which time I will release advise them of their release. If you wish to discuss dates, as we have indicated previously and are reaffirming here, please respond in writing or make arrangements for a court reporter. Scott.
Scott R. Miller Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP 355 South Grand Ave. Suite 3150 Los Angeles, CA 90071 DID: 213-787-2510 Fax: 213-687-0498 Cell: 562-618-7771 [email protected] www.cblh.com
From: Christenson, Cass [mailto:[email protected]]
2/2/2007
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 52 of 116
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 12:01 PM To: Scott Miller; Ambrozy, Rel; Brzezynski, Lora; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Manuel C. Nelson; Tracy Roman; Jaclyn M. Mason; Nancy Phillips Subject: RE: deposition scheduling Scott: Thank you for your email last night. We cannot agree to your proposed dates. Your proposed dates ignore our prior discussions about avoiding substantial time gaps between depositions, as we will be traveling to California for these depositions. In addition, as we have discussed, we intend to depose Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses after individual depositions. Further, we understand that Mr. Jue will testify as a Rule 30(b)(6) designee, and, therefore, as we have stated before, we would like to take his individual deposition when we depose him as a Rule 30(b)(6) designee. Indeed, you previously agreed and took the position that individual and designee depositions should not be separate events for the same witness. We appreciate that you have finally responded to our many requests to set a deposition schedule. Unfortunately, your proposal is incomplete as it does not account for other depositions of ViewSonic witnesses, nor has Tatung provided deposition dates. Further, as stated above, your proposal is not workable. Although we have no choice but to file a motion to compel, we hope that your email signals a new willingness to finally discuss these issues with us. If so, please let me know what times next week you (and counsel for Tatung) are available to talk. Regards, Cass
From: Scott Miller [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:49 PM To: Christenson, Cass; Ambrozy, Rel; Brzezynski, Lora; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Manuel C. Nelson; Tracy Roman; Jaclyn M. Mason; Nancy Phillips Subject: deposition scheduling Counsel: I have been able to confirm the following dates for depositions of the following ViewSonic witnesses at the McKenna Long office in Los Angeles: Tommy Jue - February 20 Sally Wang - March 2 Vivian Liu - March 22. We are checking on dates for the 2 other individual ViewSonic employees noticed by LPL, namely, Robert Ranucci and Jeff Volpe. As we advised you long ago, Mr. Zapka is no longer a ViewSonic employee. Please let me know ASAP if you wish to reserve these dates for these depositions as schedules can change. As for Mr. Jue, my understanding that he is assigned to Taiwan was erroneous. Regards, Scott.
Scott R. Miller Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP 355 South Grand Ave. Suite 3150 Los Angeles, CA 90071 DID: 213-787-2510 Fax: 213-687-0498 Cell: 562-618-7771
2/2/2007
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
[email protected] www.cblh.com
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 53 of 116
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient or recipients. This e-mail may contain privileged attorney/client communications or work product. Any dissemination of this e-mail by anyone other than an intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies thereof from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attachments.
2/2/2007
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 54 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Manuel C. Nelson
From: Sent: To: Cc: [email protected] Friday, January 26, 2007 3:05 PM
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 55 of 116
[email protected]; Scott Miller; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Manuel C. Nelson; [email protected]; Jaclyn M. Mason; Nancy Phillips
Subject: RE: deposition scheduling I do not understand what your email has to do with Tatung. I have told you generally when our witnesses are available and requested that you provide blocks of dates so I can make arrangments with the witnesses. You never responded.
Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein. The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to [email protected].
From: Christenson, Cass [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 12:01 PM To: Scott Miller; Ambrozy, Rel; Brzezynski, Lora; Merideth, Frank (Shld-LA-LT); Krietzman, Mark H. (Shld-LA-IP); Ho, Valerie W. (Shld-LA-LT) Cc: Manuel C. Nelson; Tracy Roman; Jaclyn M. Mason; Nancy Phillips Subject: RE: deposition scheduling Scott: Thank you for your email last night. We cannot agree to your proposed dates. Your proposed dates ignore our prior discussions about avoiding substantial time gaps between depositions, as we will be traveling to California for these depositions. In addition, as we have discussed, we intend to depose Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses after individual depositions. Further, we understand that Mr. Jue will testify as a Rule 30(b)(6) designee, and, therefore, as we have stated before, we would like to take his individual deposition when we depose him as a Rule 30(b)(6) designee. Indeed, you previously agreed and took the position that individual and designee depositions should not be separate events for the same witness. We appreciate that you have finally responded to our many requests to set a deposition schedule. Unfortunately, your proposal is incomplete as it does not account for other depositions of ViewSonic witnesses, nor has Tatung provided deposition dates. Further, as stated above, your proposal is not workable. Although we have no choice but to file a motion to compel, we hope that your email signals a new willingness to finally discuss these issues with us. If so, please let me know what times next week you (and counsel for Tatung) are available to talk. Regards, Cass
2/2/2007
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 56 of 116
From: Scott Miller [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:49 PM To: Christenson, Cass; Ambrozy, Rel; Brzezynski, Lora; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Manuel C. Nelson; Tracy Roman; Jaclyn M. Mason; Nancy Phillips Subject: deposition scheduling Counsel: I have been able to confirm the following dates for depositions of the following ViewSonic witnesses at the McKenna Long office in Los Angeles: Tommy Jue - February 20 Sally Wang - March 2 Vivian Liu - March 22. We are checking on dates for the 2 other individual ViewSonic employees noticed by LPL, namely, Robert Ranucci and Jeff Volpe. As we advised you long ago, Mr. Zapka is no longer a ViewSonic employee. Please let me know ASAP if you wish to reserve these dates for these depositions as schedules can change. As for Mr. Jue, my understanding that he is assigned to Taiwan was erroneous. Regards, Scott.
Scott R. Miller Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP 355 South Grand Ave. Suite 3150 Los Angeles, CA 90071 DID: 213-787-2510 Fax: 213-687-0498 Cell: 562-618-7771 [email protected] www.cblh.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient or recipients. This e-mail may contain privileged attorney/client communications or work product. Any dissemination of this e-mail by anyone other than an intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies thereof from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attachments.
2/2/2007
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 57 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 58 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 59 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Manuel C. Nelson
From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: [email protected]
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 60 of 116
Friday, January 26, 2007 3:24 PM [email protected]; Scott Miller; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Manuel C. Nelson; [email protected]; Jaclyn M. Mason; Nancy Phillips RE: deposition scheduling
Importance: High Dear Cass: We are absolutely available to meet on the issue of deposition dates. In fact for several weeks Mr.. Merideth has attempted to have further discussions, as you suggest in the below e-mail to work out reasonable schedules for all depositions which respect witness schedules, the Lunar New Year, travel issues abroad etc.. In fact the proof of Mr. Merideth's productive contact is that you were advised that Mr., Farzin is the appropriate 30(b)(6) witness for Tatung Company of America as reflected in your premature submission. We can meet with you Tuesday January 30 after 2pm PST or or Wednesday January 31 after 10am PST. We are however, surprised that within hours of the below email being sent, requesting a meeting, you have filed a motion to compel. We only received your request for a meeting NEXT WEEK during lunch and have responded within an hour of reviewing same. The filing of yet another motion to compel on yet another issue that is easily resolved with a small amount of courtesy and civility is just plain wrong. We have worked hard to turn down the volume levels , for example, you commended us on the cooperative environment we provided to you during your inspection of Tatung Monitors at our offices - yet you show no courtesy or civility in return. Rather, you file a motion to compel within hours of requesting a meeting. Please confirm that you will immediately withdrawal your motion to compel on this topic (filed a few moments ago) and provide dates for a meeting. Sincerely, Mark Krietzman Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein. The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to [email protected].
From: Christenson, Cass [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 12:01 PM To: Scott Miller; Ambrozy, Rel; Brzezynski, Lora; Merideth, Frank (Shld-LA-LT); Krietzman, Mark H. (Shld-LA-IP); Ho, Valerie W. (Shld-LA-LT) Cc: Manuel C. Nelson; Tracy Roman; Jaclyn M. Mason; Nancy Phillips Subject: RE: deposition scheduling Scott:
2/2/2007
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 61 of 116
Thank you for your email last night. We cannot agree to your proposed dates. Your proposed dates ignore our prior discussions about avoiding substantial time gaps between depositions, as we will be traveling to California for these depositions. In addition, as we have discussed, we intend to depose Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses after individual depositions. Further, we understand that Mr. Jue will testify as a Rule 30(b)(6) designee, and, therefore, as we have stated before, we would like to take his individual deposition when we depose him as a Rule 30(b)(6) designee. Indeed, you previously agreed and took the position that individual and designee depositions should not be separate events for the same witness. We appreciate that you have finally responded to our many requests to set a deposition schedule. Unfortunately, your proposal is incomplete as it does not account for other depositions of ViewSonic witnesses, nor has Tatung provided deposition dates. Further, as stated above, your proposal is not workable. Although we have no choice but to file a motion to compel, we hope that your email signals a new willingness to finally discuss these issues with us. If so, please let me know what times next week you (and counsel for Tatung) are available to talk. Regards, Cass
From: Scott Miller [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:49 PM To: Christenson, Cass; Ambrozy, Rel; Brzezynski, Lora; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Manuel C. Nelson; Tracy Roman; Jaclyn M. Mason; Nancy Phillips Subject: deposition scheduling Counsel: I have been able to confirm the following dates for depositions of the following ViewSonic witnesses at the McKenna Long office in Los Angeles: Tommy Jue - February 20 Sally Wang - March 2 Vivian Liu - March 22. We are checking on dates for the 2 other individual ViewSonic employees noticed by LPL, namely, Robert Ranucci and Jeff Volpe. As we advised you long ago, Mr. Zapka is no longer a ViewSonic employee. Please let me know ASAP if you wish to reserve these dates for these depositions as schedules can change. As for Mr. Jue, my understanding that he is assigned to Taiwan was erroneous. Regards, Scott.
Scott R. Miller Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP 355 South Grand Ave. Suite 3150 Los Angeles, CA 90071 DID: 213-787-2510 Fax: 213-687-0498 Cell: 562-618-7771 [email protected] www.cblh.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE:
2/2/2007
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 62 of 116
This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient or recipients. This e-mail may contain privileged attorney/client communications or work product. Any dissemination of this e-mail by anyone other than an intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies thereof from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attachments.
2/2/2007
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 63 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Manuel C. Nelson
From: Sent: To: Cc:
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 64 of 116
Christenson, Cass [[email protected]] Friday, January 26, 2007 4:00 PM [email protected]; Scott Miller; Ambrozy, Rel; Brzezynski, Lora; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Manuel C. Nelson; [email protected]; Jaclyn M. Mason; Nancy Phillips; Dick Kirk
Subject: RE: deposition scheduling Dear Mark: Thanks for your email. I assume that your mischaracterization of the facts is unintentional, but, to borrow your phrase, your statements are "just plain wrong." In any event, we look forward to trying to resolve these issues next week. If we can resolve them, our motion will be moot. Scott, can you join a discussion at either of the times that Mark proposes below? A global discussion would be most appropriate so we can coordinate schedules. Please let me know when both Tatung and ViewSonic can talk and I look forward to our discussion. Similarly, I am happy to discuss privilege logs then. Regards, Cass
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 6:24 PM To: Christenson, Cass; [email protected]; Ambrozy, Rel; Brzezynski, Lora; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: RE: deposition scheduling Importance: High Dear Cass: We are absolutely available to meet on the issue of deposition dates. In fact for several weeks Mr.. Merideth has attempted to have further discussions, as you suggest in the below e-mail to work out reasonable schedules for all depositions which respect witness schedules, the Lunar New Year, travel issues abroad etc.. In fact the proof of Mr. Merideth's productive contact is that you were advised that Mr., Farzin is the appropriate 30(b)(6) witness for Tatung Company of America as reflected in your premature submission. We can meet with you Tuesday January 30 after 2pm PST or or Wednesday January 31 after 10am PST. We are however, surprised that within hours of the below email being sent, requesting a meeting, you have filed a motion to compel. We only received your request for a meeting NEXT WEEK during lunch and have responded within an hour of reviewing same. The filing of yet another motion to compel on yet another issue that is easily resolved with a small amount of courtesy and civility is just plain wrong. We have worked hard to turn down the volume levels , for example, you commended us on the cooperative environment we provided to you during your inspection of Tatung Monitors at our offices - yet you show no courtesy or civility in return. Rather, you file a motion to compel within hours of requesting a meeting. Please confirm that you will immediately withdrawal your motion to compel on this topic (filed a few moments ago) and provide dates for a meeting. Sincerely, Mark Krietzman Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any matters addressed herein. The information contained in this transmission may contain privileged and confidential information. It is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any review, dissemination, distribution or duplication of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. To reply to our email administrator directly, please send an email to [email protected].
2/2/2007
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 65 of 116
From: Christenson, Cass [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 12:01 PM To: Scott Miller; Ambrozy, Rel; Brzezynski, Lora; Merideth, Frank (Shld-LA-LT); Krietzman, Mark H. (Shld-LA-IP); Ho, Valerie W. (Shld-LA-LT) Cc: Manuel C. Nelson; Tracy Roman; Jaclyn M. Mason; Nancy Phillips Subject: RE: deposition scheduling Scott: Thank you for your email last night. We cannot agree to your proposed dates. Your proposed dates ignore our prior discussions about avoiding substantial time gaps between depositions, as we will be traveling to California for these depositions. In addition, as we have discussed, we intend to depose Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses after individual depositions. Further, we understand that Mr. Jue will testify as a Rule 30(b)(6) designee, and, therefore, as we have stated before, we would like to take his individual deposition when we depose him as a Rule 30(b)(6) designee. Indeed, you previously agreed and took the position that individual and designee depositions should not be separate events for the same witness. We appreciate that you have finally responded to our many requests to set a deposition schedule. Unfortunately, your proposal is incomplete as it does not account for other depositions of ViewSonic witnesses, nor has Tatung provided deposition dates. Further, as stated above, your proposal is not workable. Although we have no choice but to file a motion to compel, we hope that your email signals a new willingness to finally discuss these issues with us. If so, please let me know what times next week you (and counsel for Tatung) are available to talk. Regards, Cass
From: Scott Miller [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 8:49 PM To: Christenson, Cass; Ambrozy, Rel; Brzezynski, Lora; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Manuel C. Nelson; Tracy Roman; Jaclyn M. Mason; Nancy Phillips Subject: deposition scheduling Counsel: I have been able to confirm the following dates for depositions of the following ViewSonic witnesses at the McKenna Long office in Los Angeles: Tommy Jue - February 20 Sally Wang - March 2 Vivian Liu - March 22. We are checking on dates for the 2 other individual ViewSonic employees noticed by LPL, namely, Robert Ranucci and Jeff Volpe. As we advised you long ago, Mr. Zapka is no longer a ViewSonic employee. Please let me know ASAP if you wish to reserve these dates for these depositions as schedules can change. As for Mr. Jue, my understanding that he is assigned to Taiwan was erroneous. Regards, Scott.
Scott R. Miller Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP 355 South Grand Ave. Suite 3150
2/2/2007
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Los Angeles, CA 90071 DID: 213-787-2510 Fax: 213-687-0498 Cell: 562-618-7771 [email protected] www.cblh.com
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 66 of 116
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient or recipients. This e-mail may contain privileged attorney/client communications or work product. Any dissemination of this e-mail by anyone other than an intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies thereof from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attachments.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments contain information from the law firm of McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, and are intended solely for the use of the named recipient or recipients. This e-mail may contain privileged attorney/client communications or work product. Any dissemination of this e-mail by anyone other than an intended recipient is strictly prohibited. If you are not a named recipient, you are prohibited from any further viewing of the e-mail or any attachments or from making any use of the e-mail or attachments. If you believe you have received this e-mail in error, notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the e-mail, any attachments, and all copies thereof from any drives or storage media and destroy any printouts of the e-mail or attachments.
2/2/2007
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 67 of 116
Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Manuel C. Nelson
From: Sent: To: [email protected]
Document 436-2
Filed 02/02/2007
Page 68 of 116
Friday, January 26, 2007 4:44 PM [email protected]; Scott Miller; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Manuel C. Nelson; [email protected]; Jaclyn M. Mason; Nancy Phillips; [email protected] RE: deposition scheduling
Cc: Subject:
Attachments: Krietzman, Mark H. (Shld-LA-IP).vcf
Dear Cass: It appears that you too agree that a meeting of counsel did not occur and thus the motion to compel was filed improperly. Accordingly, please follow up your words with actions and confirm that you will withdrawal the motion to compel. You also did not provide the requested information on scheduling the meeting. Due to the lack of response and to move this process forward, rather than wait for your response and in the absence of a response have an unclear record of our cooperation, we have set aside Wednesday January 31 at 11:30 am PST for that meeting. Sincerely, Mark Krietzman Greenberg Traurig, LLP 2450 Colorado Avenue, 400E Santa Monica, CA 90404 Direct: 310-586-7788 Fax: 310-586-0288
Tax Advice Disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS under Circular 230, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments), unless otherwise specifically stated, was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Int
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms