Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 396 Filed O1/08/2007 Page 1 of 3
FR’¤c:i-1At=zr>s, LA~rrc>N & Frwcsszra
A PROFESSIONAL. ASESOCEATION
ONES: Ftosawev Sonatas:
920 Nonru Kim; Srnzzr
ANNE SHEA GAM Dmzcr Dm.
Watmnueron, DELAWARE tenor (soar ear-vase
(2.0a> es :-*7700 °"Z"@F""° COM
rmx (soar een-vvon
WWW.tl?LF‘.COM
January 8, 2007
BY E-MAIL & HAND DELIVERY
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
BLANK ROME LLP
Chase Manhattan Center
120i Market Street, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 1980l
Re: LG. Philips LCD C0., Ltd. v, Id'ewS0nic Corp., et al , CA. No. O4-343—.lJ¥
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
Defendants Tatung Company and 'fatung Company of America, lnc. (collectively, the
"Tatung Defendants") respectfully submit this letter brief in opposition to Plaintiff LG. Philips
LCD Co., Ltd.’s ("LPL") Motion to Compel Technical and lvlounting—Related Discovery.
LPL’s Motion is premature and unnecessary because the Tatung Defendants have already
produced, or agreed to supplement their document production to include, many of the documents
addressed in this Motion. l..PL’s Motion also is based entirely on a mischaracterization of the
Tatung Defendants’ document production and discovery responses and the parties’ agreements
reached during the meet and confer process.
First, with respect to LPL’s claim that the Tatung Defendants did not identify all
responsive products in response to LPL’s Interrogatories 2 and 3, the truth is that the Tatung
Defendants have identified hundreds of products in their interrogatory responsesi LPL recently
informed the Tatung Defendants that there were a few products that were not included in the
interrogatory responses. The Tatung Defendants agreed to investigate and to supplement their
responses to the extent that the products identified by LPL are responsive. (Declaration of
Valerie W. Ho ("Ho Decl."), 1[ZZ; Interrogatory Responses at Exhs. A—C thereto)
Second, during the parties’ meet and confers in December 2006, counsel for LPL
clarified Ll’L’s request for an identification of products that have been "marketed or soid under a
trademark or brand name" belonging to Tatung and, based on this clarification, the Tatung
Defendants agreed to supplement their interrogatory responses, (Ic!. at ll 3.)
turn-3102120-r

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 396 Filed O1/08/2007 Page 2 of 3
The Honorable Vincent 3. Poppiti
lanuary 8, 2007
Page 2
Third, LPL completely mischaracterizes the Tatung Defendants production of technical
and assembly~related documents As LPL repeatedly was told during the parties’ December
2006 meet and confers, the Tatung Defendants have produced more documents than those that
are “representative" of mounting systems used for their products. In fact, they have produced
technical documents for numerous products, These documents provide sufficient information to
allow LPI, to "i) determine the structural components and assembly of Tatung’s visual display
products (including, for example, the screw hole locations used in mounting); and ii) determine
how the LCD module is attached, mounted, and/or fixed .... " (LPL’s Motion at 2t) Samples of
these documents were previously attached to the Tatung Defendants’ Opposition to LPl..’s
Motion to Ccnipel Unredacted Technical Documents,] ln addition, the Tatung Defendants
agreed that if they have exploded drawings and assembly instructions for the products at issue,
they will supplement their productions to include both types of documents to the extent those
documents have not already been producedrg The Tatung Defendants also explained that the
assembly and mounting features of products within a product series are the same and may be
covered by the same technical documents (the differences between the products within a series
are minor and are not mounting related, ag, one product may include a touch screen component
while another does not). The Tatung Defendants agreed to provide LPL with a list identifying
which groups of products have mounting systems that are covered by the technical documents
produced. (Idt atlld,)
However, during the meet and confer, LPL insisted that the Tatung Defendants produce
every single technicahrelated document for the hundreds of products identified even though LPL
thus far has accused only three products of infringement. The Tatung Defendants explained that
while they are willing to produce, pursuant to the parties’ previous agreement, technical
documents that are sufficient to show the manner in which the flat panel display module is
mounted in the products - documents that would allow LPL to determine which products
allegedly infringe the patents—in—suit - it was unreasonable and extremely burdensome for LPL to
demand every single piece of paper or electronic document that may be remotely considered to
be “technical related? Producing every technicahrelated document potentially would require the
Tatung Defendants to search the files of hundreds of employees, LPL’s demand for every
"technical document" is particularly burdensome and oppressive because most of these
documents do not even pertain to accused products. The Tatung Defendants assured LPL that
once it has narrowed the list of products at issue by identifying all of the accused products (based
on the drawings and assembly instructions provided by the Tatung Defendants), they would be
E Unredacted documents identifying the Tatung Defendants customers have since been
produced to LPI.,
“ During the parties’ meet and confer, LPL. identified one worlc instruction that was
produced in the California litigation but was not included in the production in this case. The
Tatung Defendants agreed to review their production and to supplement accordingly.
RLFl—3l02I20-l

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 396 Filed O1/08/2007 Page 3 of 3
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
January 8, 2007
Page 3
willing to produce additional information regarding the accused products. (Id. at il 5.)
Because of the holidays and counsel’s vacation plans, LPL was informed that the Tatung
Defendants would provide supplementations in January 2007. The Tatung Defendants also
assured LPL that it would receive the supplementations before any scheduled depositions of
Tatung witnesses.
Accordingly, LPL’s Motion is moot. The Tatung Defendants respectfully request that the
Special Master deny LPL’s Motion in its entirety.
Respectfully,
Anne Shea Gaza
(#4093)
ASG/atig
cc: Clerk of the Court (By Electronic Filing)
Richard Kirk, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Cormac T. Connor, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Lora Brzezynslci, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Mark Krietzman, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Scott R. Miller, Esquire (via electronic mail)
Jeffrey B. Bove, Esquire (via electronic mail)
aim-:n02:20~¤

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 396

Filed 01/08/2007

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 396

Filed 01/08/2007

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 396

Filed 01/08/2007

Page 3 of 3