Free Reply to Response to Motion - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

EXHIBIT 4
Case 2:04-cv-OO400—PGFl Document 98-6 Filed O1/23/2006 Page1 of 4

MAR 02,2005 15:30 SGF ‘ 5122311411 · Page 1
_ \ I C 'LAW OFFICES
C) Snvmm, GA1.Ass0 8z Fanmz, PLC
6300 BRIDGE POINT PARKWAY. BUILDING ONE
SUITE 41 O A
AUSTIN. TEXAS 78730
. Telephone 512·23l-1311
Facsimile 512-231-1411
Troy, MichIQ¤¤ Office
363 W. Big Beaver Road. Suite 300
Troy, Michigan 48084
Telephone: 248·‘/20-0290
Faceimile: 248-720-0291
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
_ Date: 3/2/05 ·
Attn: Andy I Ialaby F ax N0.: (602) 382-6070
From: Greg DOI1211`lU€' ·
Re: J
L A`! l I
” _ Number of Pages (including Cover Sheet): 3
MESSAGE:
CONFIDEN TIA LI T YN O T E
I · The pu;·¤· accompanying this facsimile transmission contain ism:-mation _/Mm the law ojjice of Slman. 6‘uIa.vm,& Frantz PLC um! mg
Mnfideuliul andprlvllegcd. The information is intended ta be used by the Indiv/duaI(1) or ¢nIlb·(ics) named on this cover sheet an{y. [/'yuu
Ill'! NN the Mldttdutl rudpient be aware that reading dtselnxhsg copying distribution or use af the content: qfthis trgmmlssigy ly pmtyilyitgtt,
· Please nntijv us immediately Uyeu have received this transmission In crror at the number listed almvz and mum the ttnmmvm tu us vin
ragularmrdl. (
` Case 2 :04-cv—OO400—PG R Document 98-6 Filed O1/23/2006 Page 2 of 4

MAR 02,2005 15:30 SGF _ 5122311411 Page 2
LAW orrtoss
Suvtotsr, Gamtsso & Fanurz, PLC
6300 BRIDGEPOINT PARKWAY, BUILDING ONE
I SUITE 410 A
AUSTIN. TEXAS 78730
_ Telephone 512-231-1311
_ Facsimile 512-231-1411
GIBUDTY S. Dunahus 363 W DI UTroy. léliohiiggn Offigg
. 1 ' · I 0 , ' 3
°"°hu° ds fattm . U Mtgnrgauaniiaost
·_ Telephone: 248-720-0290
_ Facsimile: 248-720-029l
March 2, 2005 ._ _
VIA FACSIMILE (602l 382-6070
· Andy llalaby, Esq. _
Snell & Wilmer LLP
One Arizona Center i
Phoenix, Arizona 85004-
Re: Hypercom Corporation v. Verve LLC and Omron Corporation,
Civil Action N0. CV 04-0400 PHX PGR, District of Arizona
I- -\
I} Dear Andy: _
Thank you for your letter of March l, 2005 regarding Verve l..lrC’s discovery _ p
responses. Verve will attempt to work with you to resolve any issues without the nccd
for court intervention.
Verve is willing to designate all ITC discovery, includ-ing conhdential business `
ignforrnation produced in the ITC investigation, for use in this lawsuit, subject to two
conditions. First, because there is no protective order in the above-captioned case, Verve
_ . requires that allcontidential business information be treated like it was at the ITC? until
V entry of at protectiveordcr. Second, if any documents containing confidential business
information are tiled with the Court, Verve further requires that these documents be filed
under seal.
Verve is still unclear why I-Iypercom Corporation contends that all of its
discovery requests pertained to personal jurisdictional issues. Verve tinds I-lypcrcom
Corporations claim that virtually all of its original document requests tiom May I7,
2004 are related to personal jurisdiction increclible. Nonetheless, il" Hypercom
Corporation provides u suflicient explanation, with citation to authority, for its position
that acts and conduct outside of‘Arizona between alleged conspirators can subject the
· alleged conspirators to jurisdiction in Arizona, Verve will waive many of its objections
and provide additional discovery. .

. Case 2:04-cv-OO4OO4PGR Document 98-6 Filed O1/23/2006 _ Page 3 of 4

if MAR 02,2005 15 :30 SGF 5122311411 Page 3 .
(W i
I Obviously, ll take offense to your allegation that Verve played "iast and loose with
the discovery process" at the l'l`C. No sueh behavior occurred there and none will occur
here. Verve objected to Hypereorn Co1·poration‘s requests because it is unhiir to require a
party to expend the time, money and effort to respond to fanreaehing discovery requests
when personal jurisdiction has not been established. This is the very reason the Court
ordered only limited discoyegy related to personal iurisdietion.
On a related note, Verve also requests a response from llypereom Corporation `
with regard to the deposition noticed for March 4, 2005. Verve sent a letter yesterday
explaining that its representative, Raymond Galasso, will be unavailable for a deposition
on that date. Please indicate in writing by the close of business today whether l Iypercom .
. Corporation will re-notice that deposition. If we do not hear from you, we will be forced
to file a motion to quash the deposition notice.
Very truly yours, _
Gregory S. Donahue _
Case 2:04-cv-OO400—PGFl C Document 98-6 Filed O1/23/2006 Page 4 of 4

EXHIBIT 4

Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR

Document 98-6

Filed 01/23/2006

Page 1 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR

Document 98-6

Filed 01/23/2006

Page 2 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR

Document 98-6

Filed 01/23/2006

Page 3 of 4

Case 2:04-cv-00400-PGR

Document 98-6

Filed 01/23/2006

Page 4 of 4