Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 304 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 1 of 4
F2ic;i·iAr=e1;>s, Lavrow & Fiweaa
A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
ONE Rooney Savanna
Anne Shea Gaza 920 NORTH KM`; STREET Direct Dial
WILMINGTON, DELAWARE IEEOI
(302) $5F-77OO
Fax (acm een-vvon
WWW~ RI...F. COM
October 23, 2006
BY HAND DELIVERY
& ELECTRONIC MAIL
The Honortable Vincent J. Poppiti
Blank Rome LLP
Chase Manhattan Centre, Suite 800
Wilmington, DE 19801-42.26
Re: LG.P/rzilips LCD Co., Ltd v. ViewSonic Corp, er cal,
C.A. No. O¢l~343—.lJF
Dear Special Master Poppiti:
Defendants 1`atung Company and Tatung Company of America (collectively, "Tatung")
submit this letter in response to Plaintiff` LG Philips LCD Co., Ltcl’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 "i`atung’s visual display products and recommend to
Judge Farnan that written discovery in this case be extended to March l6, 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 Honor’s procedures by not having a meet-and—confer with Tatung regarding producing or
making available Tatt1ng’s visual display products. (See Letters from S. Hassid Letter to C.
Conner (Oct. l2 and 16, 2006), attached as Exhibits 1 & 2, respectively.) As Tatung’s October
I2 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withdrawn.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 12 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—coufer‘
sessions, confirmed that this issue was never raised. Accordingly, LPL’s motion is improper for
RLFE-3073502-1

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 304 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 2 of 4
The Honorable Vincent .ll Poppiti
October 23, 2006
Page 2
not following the Special l\/laster’s March 25, 2006 order regarding discovery dispute
procedures.
Additionally, LPL’s motion is frivolous and rnoot because prior to I..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 of that are available for acquisition
by LPL and a list of the damaged (unsaleable) Tatung products that Tatung has possession,
custody or control ot`. Tatung even provided LPL with a list of Tatung Company displays that it
has in its custody and control that LPI., can purchase or inspect (See letter of S. Hassid 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 tile its motion.
TATUNG HAS PRODUCED ASSEMBLY DRAWINGS
AND MATERIALS FOR OVER 800 LCD DISPLAY PRODUCTS.
LPI. 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 only two ofthe 131 monitores identilied in its response to LPL’s lnterrogatory 2." (See LPL ·
Motion at 2 1] 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 "5(3% 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, Tatung has continued to supplement its production and notitied LPL that assembly~
drawings and work instructions for "about "70%" of Tatung Company of America had been
produced by October 20, per the agreentent of the Parties and that another "l6%” of Tatung
Company of America documents would be produced shortly. (See Letter trom S. Hassid to C.
Connor, (October 20, 2006), attached as Exhibit 5.) Moreover, `l`atung’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 “p1‘oducts 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
worlt instructions for them." Id. As of today, the remaining 16% of the Tatung Company of
America documents have been produced to LPL. Accorclingly, Tatung has acted diligently in
satisfying its discovery obligations.
RLF I ~307.'3502·— I

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 304 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 3 of 4
The Honorable Vincent .l, Poppiti
October 23, 2.006
Page 3
THE WRITTEN DISCOVERY CUT~OFF PASSED
AND LPL DID NOT SEEK ANY EXTENSION BEFORE IT CLOSED.
LPL also argues that Tatung’s objection to LPL”s Third Set of Requests, which it admits
were tiled 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. It’s decision to wait until after 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 perrnitted to
talre non—written discovery to develop its case. Against this backdrop, isPL’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 l\/lotion at 3 il?.) LPL’s liction regarding “disputes"
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,
in order to persuade the Special Master that extension ofthe written discovery deadline is
somehow appropriate, LPL claims that "[w]hi1e Tatung has remained silent, Defendant
ViewSonic has agreed in principal with LPI. that any extension of the 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, which states:
“First, let rne correct the record. At no time during our discussion did
ViewSonic state a belief that an extension of written discovery cut—off deadline
between the parties would beneiit everyone .... "
CONCLUSION
Tatung 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 LPI. has only made infringement allegations against a
single Tatung product ~ the Ll7Al\/ITN.
LPL received what it sought, a massive amount of material on Tatung display products,
LPI. now has assembly drawings from 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% of all Tatung Company of America
display products. It is not additional time to generate new discovery that LPL needs to focus on,
hut rather LPL needs to refrain from tiling discovery motions and instead complete its review of
the over 800 products and supplement its infringement allegations, It is incumbent upon LPL to
RLFI —30`J’Z.35OE?.·§

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 304 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 4 of 4
The l~Ionorable Vincent 3. Poppiti
October 23, 2006
Page 4
either provide a colorable claim of infringement against a product or put that product on a list of
noiviniringing products
Tatung opposes any extension ofthe written discovery deadline. As the Court in F ine/1 iz
Hercules stated, "tidelity to the constraints of Scheduling Orders and deadlines is critical to the
Court‘s case rnanagemerit responsibilitiesr" See Fine/1 v Hercules Inc , 1995 WL 785100 at *9
(DrDeirl995)r Accordingly, the Speciai Master should deny LPL’s motion to compel in its
entirety and should require LPL to seek and participate in a nieet—and~confer in accordance with
Your Honor’s established procedures.
Respectfully,
cdr!/ruull/nerr @a
Anne Shea Gaza (#4093)
ASG/afg
cc: Clerk ofthe Court (By Electronic Filing)
Richard D. Kirk, Esquire
Cormac T. Connor, Esquire
Richard L, Horwitz, Esquire
.lei*`l`rey B. Bove, Esquire
Lora A. Brzezynski, Esquire
Tracy Roman
Mark Krietzman, Esquire
Scott R. Miller, Esquire
RL? 1 ·30'?3503— I

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 304

Filed 10/23/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 304

Filed 10/23/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 304

Filed 10/23/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 304

Filed 10/23/2006

Page 4 of 4