Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 309 Filed 11/13/2006 Page 1 of 3
BI./-\l\1l< a RO/\/\Ettr·
eoonsaows AT tkw
P1'ru:rr:.· (_102)425-64I0
Fax: (302) 428-5l32
l:`mnil': P0ppiri@H!nr1kR0rrie.com
November 13 2006
By CMF and EMAIL
Richard D. Kirk, Esquire
The Bayard Firm
222 Delaware Ave., Suite 900
P.O. Box 25130
Wilmington, DE 19899
Anne Shea Gaza, Esquire
Richards Layton & Finger
One Rodney Square
920 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: ORDER: LG. Philips LCD Co., Ltd. v. Tatung Co., et cri.;
C.A. No. 04-343 JJF
Dear Counsel:
By correspondence dated October 6, 2006 (the "Motion to Compel"), Plaintiff L. G.
Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPL") requests that l order Defendants 'fatung Company and 'l`atung
Company of America, Inc. (collectively, "Tatung") to produce or make available lor inspection
samples of their visual display products and to recommend to the Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
that written discovery in the case be extended through March 16, 2007.
By correspondence dated October 23, 2006 ("Tatung’s Response"), Anne Shea Gaza on
behalf of Tatung calls into question the veracity of certain statements made in the Local Rule
7.1.1 Certification tiled. in conjunction with LPL’s Motion to Compel.
In this regard, Special Master is particularly struck by the representation contained in
Exhibit 1 to Tatung’s Response — that being a letter from Steve P. Hassid to Richard D. Kirk
dated October 12, 2006 — which reads in pertinent part as follows:
Chase Manhattan Centre 1201 Market Street Suite SOO Wilmington, DE 19801
www.B|ankR0me.c0m
O62038_O0612y4O165£;l)fé\yrafe • Florida • Maryland • Newlersey • New York · Ohio • Pennsylvania · Washington, DC

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 309 Filed 11/13/2006 Page 2 of 3
BLANK ~ ROMELLP
COUNSELOR5 AT LAW
Richard D. Kirk, Esquire
Anne Shea Gaza, Esquire
November 13 2006
Page 2
In support of your letter and Motion to Compel, LPL stated that
“[f]ollowing this exchange of correspondence, the parties
commenced negotiations on, among many other disputes, the
issues raised in LPL’s Motion to Compel. These negotiations
involving Tatung and LPL occurred during meet—and-confer
sessions that lasted for several hours each day on September 7, 8
and 12, 2006." This is simply untrue. The meet-and-confer
sessions on September 7, 8 & 12th were to discuss LPL and
ViewSonic discovery issues, not Tatung discovery issues. Tatung
participated in those sessions primarily as an observer and, more
importantly, LPL never raised either the issue of Ykzturzg producing
samples of its visual display products or Tatuag agreeing to re-
open the written discovery deadline during any of those meet-and-
confer sessions. ViewSonic’s counsel was present at the meet~and—
confer sessions and has confirmed that his understanding of what
transpired during those meet-and—confer sessions is consistent with
ours."
The Special Master concludes that it would be inappropriate to address LPL’s Motion
without first making a determination of whether the meet-and-confer process required by Local
Rule 7.l.l has, in fact, occurred. To that end, Tatung is ordered to provide an affidavit from
ViewSonic’s counsel which addresses the facts asserted in the above-ref`erenced quotation from
Mr. Hassid’s letter. Said affidavit shall be filed with the Special Master not later than November
20, 2006.
Subsequent to the receipt and review of same, the Special Master will convene a hearing,
at which time counsel for the parties will be expected to offer testimony in support of their
respective positions in this regard.
insofar as LPL’s Motion relates to the extension of written discovery to March 16, 2007,
the Special Master declines to entertain the application. While the Order Appointing the Special
Master dated February 25, 2005 [D.I. l78] provides in pertinent part that the Special Master, ". ..
shall have authority to regulate all proceedings and take all measures necessary to manage
discovery ..." |iD.l. 178 at 'll 2], the Special Master has not presumed to take any role in the
management of discovery in this case that was intended to disturb the Scheduling Order set by
0620%.00612/40165576v.t

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 309 Filed 11/13/2006 Page 3 of 3
BLANK — ROMELIP
COUNSELORS AT LAW
Richard D. Kirk, Esquire
Anne Shea Gaza, Esquire
November 13 2006
Page 3
the Court. The Special Master concludes that, after there has been a determination on the meet—
and-confer issue, any application to modify the Rule 16 Scheduling Order shall be brought
directly to the attention of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
fours-Simi truly;

` . ppiti
Special Master
o.
(DSBAN 100614)
VJP:slc
0620%.00612/40165576v.l

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 309

Filed 11/13/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 309

Filed 11/13/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 309

Filed 11/13/2006

Page 3 of 3