Free Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00343-JJF Document I1 81 Filed O3/O4/2005 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LG.PI-IILIPS LCD CO., LTD.,
I
I
Plaintiff, 1
I Civil Action No. 04-343-JJF
v. 1
I
TATUNG COMPANY; et al., {
¤.
Defendants. I
I
PLAINTIFF LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.’S
MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME
TO RESPOND TO TATUNG DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
AS TO JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
Plaintiff LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPLi’) respectfully requests an enlargement of the
March 7, 2005 deadline to file an answering brief responding to the Motion To Dismiss for Lack
of Personal Jurisdiction tiled by Defendants Tatung Company ("Tatung") and Tatung Company
of America, Inc. ("Tatung America") (the "Tatung Defendants") (D.I. 16.).1
In November 2004, this Court entered orders granting LPL’s motion for jurisdictional
discovery (D.I. 88) and extending the time for LPL to brief the jurisdictional issues raised in the
motion to dismiss until after jurisdictional discovery was completed (D.I. 90). The Tatung
Defendants, however, have avoided and delayed jurisdictional discovery. On February 25, 2005,
the Court appointed fomier Judge Poppiti as a Special Master to resolve these issues (D.I. 178).
LPL believes that the Court’s appointment of the Special Master implicitly extends the
March 7, 2005 deadline for filing LPL’s answering brief until after resolution of the
I LPL already has filed a partial answering brief regarding the Tatung Defendants’dismissaI arguments
concerning issues other than jurisdiction, including technical process and service issues (D.I. 40).
578374Ivl

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 181 Filed O3/O4/2005 Page 2 of 3
jurisdictional discovery issues so that LPL has the benefit of the discovery it needs to brief the
jurisdictional issues. Otherwise, the appointment` of the Special Master would serve no useful
purpose. Judge Poppiti has scheduled an initial conference for March 9. Judge Poppiti will thus
only begin to resolve the timing and scope of jurisdictional discovery after the March 7 deadline
has expired.
The Court has broad authority to grant an enlargement of time for good cause. More
specifically, the Court may properly enlarge a pending deadline when, as here, LPL has sought
an enlargement of time before the deadline expires. See Ped. R. Civ. P. 6(b).2 This Court has
ruled that LPL is entitled to jurisdictional discovery; further, this Court has ruled that LPL should
have until after the completion of jurisdictional discovery to submit its brief concerning personal
jurisdiction. Accordingly, LPL respectfully requests that the Court enter an order formally
enlarging the time for LPL to file its brief on personal jurisdiction until fifteen (15) days after the
completion of jurisdictional discovery, as determined by the Special Discovery Master.
LPL’s counsel conferred with Tatung’s counsel in an effort to agree to enlarge the time
for LPL to file its Answering Brief While consenting generally to the extension of time,
Tatung’s counsel insisted on extending the deadline to a date certain. Because the process before
the Special Discovery Master is just beginning, because the parties have little control over the
Special Discovery Master’s calendar, and because the history of this case demonstrates that
obtaining any ordered discovery from the Tatung Defendants will continue to be problematic,
LPL believes that setting the deadline at a definite point after the completion of discovery makes
more sense than an arbitrary date certain that may need to be extended repeatedly.
2 Rule 6(b) provides in relevant part that "the court for cause shown may at any time in its discretion"
order a deadline set by rule, notice, or order of court to be "enlarged if request therefor is made before the
expiration of the period originally prescribed or as extended by a previous order." Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)( 1).
2.

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF Document 181 Filed O3/O4/2005 Page 3 of 3
For the foregoing reasons, LPL respectfully requests an enlargement of time to tile its
Answering Brief on personal jurisdiction in response to the motion to dismiss (D.I. 16) until and
including 15 (fifteen) days after the completion of jurisdictional discovery, as determined by the
Special Discovery Master.
March 4, 2005 THE BAYARD FIRM
ichar D. Kir k 9 2
222 Delaware Avenue — 9th Floor
Wilmington, DE 19899-5130
(302)_655-5000
Counsel for Plaintiff
LG.PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD.
OF COUNSEL:
Daniel G. Jarcho
Matthew T. Bailey
Lora A. Brzezynski
Cass W. Christensen
McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP
1900 K. Street, NW `
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 496-7500
578374vl V
3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 181

Filed 03/04/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 181

Filed 03/04/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00343-JJF

Document 181

Filed 03/04/2005

Page 3 of 3