Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 305 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 1 of 3
Ft•ic:r~iAi=a:>s, l..AY“rc>i~i 8. Fimoian
A PF2OF'E551ONAl. ASSOCFATION
Owe Rooney Soumae
Anne Shea Gaza 920 NORTH KING STREET Direct Dial
racial een-·nc>c> G,m@p_L,:yCOM
Faxtacnziesi-7701
VVWWKRLF`. CGM
October 23, 2006
BY HAND DELIVERY
& ELECTRONIC MAIL
The I··ionorable Vincent .1. Poppiti
Blank Rome LLP
Chase Manhattan Centre, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801-4226
Re: [.G.P/riltps LCD C0, Ltd v ViewSonic Corp., el rn'.,
C.A. No. 04-343-JJF |CORRECT1€})[
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
Defendants Tatung Company and Tatung Company of America (collectively, ""I`atung")
submit this letter in response to Plaintiff LG Philips LCD C0., Ltd’s ("LPL") October 6, 2006 motion
to compel (“LPL’s Motion") requesting the Special Master order Tatung to produce or make
available for inspection all samples of Tatung’s visual display products and recommend to Judge
Farnan that written discovery in this case be extended to March 16, 2007.
LPL’s Motion is an attempt at pretending a discovery dispute exists. In this instance, LPL
claims there is a genuine discovery dispute regarding Tatung producing or making available Tatung’s
visual display products, when none exists. LPL does so in the hopes that it will be able to persuade
the Court to extend the written discovery deadline. in doing so, LPL has ignored Your l~ionor’s
procedures by not having a meet~and—confer with Tatung regarding producing or making available
Tatung’s visual display products. (See Letters from S. Hassid Letter to C. Conner (Oct. 12 and i6,
2006), attached as Exhibits i 8; 2, respectively.) As Tatung’s October 12 and 16 letters explained,
LPL’s motion to compel was improper and should have been withdrawn. LPL claims that during
meet—and-confer sessions on September 7, 8 and l2 with Tatung and Viewsonic, LPL raised the
issues of Tatung producing or making available their visual display products. Viewsonic’s counsel,
who attended all three of the meet—an—conl°er sessions, confirmed that this issue was never raised.
Accordingly, LPL’s motion is improper For not following the Special Mastr’s March 25, 2006 order
regarding discovery dispute procedures.
Additionally, LPL’s motion is frivolous and moot because prior to l..PL’s tiling of its motion
to compel on this issue, Tatung had already agreed to provide LPL a list of Tatung products which
Tatung continues to have custody and control ofthat are available for acquisition by LPL and a list of
the damaged (unsaleable) Tatung products that Tatung has possession, custody or control ofl Tatung
arr 1-surssaz-1

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 305 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 2 of 3
The Honorable Vincent .l. Poppiti
October 2,3, 2.006
Page 2
even provided LPL with a list of Tatung Company displays that it has in its custody and control that
LPL can purchase or inspect (See letter of S. lelassid to C. Connor, (Oct. 20, 2006), attached as
Exhibit .3..) and Tatung Company of`America is completing its list which will be communicated to
LPL as soon as possible. Despite this resolution, LPL still proceeded to file its motion.
LPL inappropriately complains in its motion that “Tatung still has not complied with the
parties’ agreements. in particular, LPL. claims that Tatung "has produced technical documents for
aunt two of the 131 m0uit0r.s identified in its response to LPL’s Interrogatory 2." (See LPL Motion
at 2 {I .3, Emphasis in original.) This is simply not true. On the same day LPL tiled its Motion,
Tatung sent LPL a letter indicating that, as of October 6, 2006, it had produced "assembly-related
drawings or work instructions" covering “96% of Tatung Company monitors" and "50% of
Tatung Company of America Display Products? (See Letter from M. Krietzman to C. Connor,
(Oct. 6, 2006), attached as Exhibit 4, Emphasis added.) Additionally, Tatu: has continued to
supplement its production and notified LPL that assembly—drawings and work instructions for "about
"70%" ofTatung Company of America had been produced by October 20, per the agreement ofthe
Parties and that another "i6%" of Tatung Company of America documents would be produced
shortly. (See Letter from S. Hassid to C. Connor, (October 20, 2006), attached as Exhibit 5.)
Moreover, Tatung’s October 20, 2006 letter explained that "Tatung does not have responsive
documents for the small percentage of remaining display products (no more than 5% for Tatung
Company and 14% percent for Tatung Company of America) in its custody or control" because they
are either "products with small production runs (less than 50 total units) or they are third party
products resold by Tatung but which were not Tatung company products and Tatung never received
assembly drawings or work instructions tor them." Id. As of today, the remaining l6% of the Tatung
Company of America documents have been produced to LPL. Accordingly, `Fatung has acted
diligently in satisfying its discovery obligations.
LPL also argues that `l`atung’s objection to LPL’s Third Set of Requests, which it admits
were filed after the close of written discovery, somehow justifies extension of the written discovery
deadline through March l6, 2007. LPL, however, has had more than two years to propound written
discovery. lt’s decision to wait until alter the close of fact discovery to complete its factual record is
not a basis for extending the written discovery deadline. Requiring the parties to abide by the
scheduling order will not prejudice LPL since it is still permitted to take non~written discovery to
develop its case.. Against this backdrop, LPL’s claim that it needs additional time to complete
written discovery "based on existing disputes, scheduling issues, and other reasons” rings hollow.
(See LPL’s Motion at 3 ‘li2).. LPL’s fiction regarding "clisputes" that have no support in the record
before Your Honor provide no basis for extending written discovery. in addition, Tatung is not
aware of any scheduling issues between the parties that would otherwise support such a request.
ln order to persuade the Special Master that extension of the written discovery deadline is
somehow appropriate, LPL claims that "[w]hile Tatung has remained silent, Defendant ViewSonic
has agreed in principal with LPL that any extension ofthe written discovery deadline would benefit
all parties" LPL’s statements are simply not accurate and are a distortion of the facts and record,
Tatung respectfully refers the Special Master to counsel for ViewSonic’s letter of October 6, 2006,
Fll.Fl-3073502-l

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 305 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 3 of 3
The Honorable Vincent .l. Poppiti
October .23, .2006
Page 3
which states:
"First, let me correct the record. At no time during our discussion did ViewSonic
state a belief that an extension of written discovery cut~ot’f deadline between the
parties would benefit everyone toti "
"1"atung has provided assembly drawings and has expedited its productions to LPL, Tatung
has gone the extra mile and produced full color pdf work instructions to assure that LPL has the best
quality records. Id To date LPL has only made infringernent allegations against a single Tatung
product — the Ll ”/AMTN.
LPL received what it sought, a massive amount of material on Tatung display products, LPL
now has assembly drawings hom Tatung for over 800 display products which encompass about 96%
of all Tatung Company display products sold or offered for sale in the United States and assembly
drawings or work instructions for about 86% ofall Tatung Company of America display products. it
is not additional time to generate new discovery that LPL needs to focus on, but rather LPL needs to
refrain from tiling discovery motions and instead complete its review ofthe over 800 products and
supplement its infringement allegations. It is incumbent upon LPL to either provide a colorable
claim of intiringement against a product or put that product on a list of`non—inii*inging products
Tatung opposes any extension of the written discovery deadline. As the Court in Finch v.
Hercules stated, "fidelity to the constraints oi` Scheduling Orders and deadlines is critical to the
Court's case management responsibilities? See Finch v. Herczries Inc., i995 WL. 785lOO at *9
(D.if)el.l995). Accordingly, the Special Master should deny LPL’s motion to compel in its entirety
and should require LPL to seek and participate in a meet-and-confer in accordance with Your
Honor’s established procedures.
Respectfully,
mt! all/lMl
Anne Shea Gaza (#4093)
cc: Clerk ofthe Court (By Electronic Filing)
Richard D. Kirk, Esquire
Cormac T. Connor, Esquire
Richard L. Horwitz, iisquire
lefty B. Bove, Esquire
lsora Al Brzezynski, Esquire
`Fracy Roman, Esquire
Mark Krietzman, Esquire
Scott R. Miller, Esquire
RLFI-3()`7L`35OE·l

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 305

Filed 10/23/2006

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 305

Filed 10/23/2006

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 305

Filed 10/23/2006

Page 3 of 3