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

Case 1:04-cv-00174-JJF Document 103-3 Filed O3/18/2005 Page 1 014

Case 1 :04-cv-00174-JJF Document 103-3 Filed 03/18/2005 Page 2 of 4
D3/07/2095 33:3% FAX @$01
Pliillll BUGESA
ti?
Suite QOU
McLean VA 22102
'{?U3}?44~8G=iJ0
Facsimile (703) ?44·iiGili
T0: Jasen A. Liaf, Esq.
Company: Morgan Lewis
. Fax Number: 212.309.60% A
Phene Numbex 212.3%.2111
Total Pages
iaiciuding Cover: 5
From: Kevin M.Bel1, Esq.
Sanders Bireci Line: (FOB) ?44~8OB5 _
Date: March E", EGGS ` I
Client Number: U23G04.01 01 '
Comments:
WASHi?¤iGTON DC
NORTHERN VERGIDHA
DALLAS
DENVER
ANCHORAGE
OSHA. QATAR
Cnniidumiatity Heist The decrisments
amuummyéng this fmcsimiie contain
inlenmticn frum the law firm of Patten ·
Boggs ii.? wnicn is cenfidenréaa anuier
privileged. Tm infnrmatiun is intended
ueiy fa; me use ci me indlwévai ur
em; nemd on lhis lmnsmissiuri
sheer. it you are mt ihe intended
recipieiai you are hereby nutiliee that
any dlsmsaiie. wvyifvy, Gistrmmjozi ur
the rakiwg uf any aciim in reiiasiue un
the ummis cf hk iaeximiie is slzmy
pmhitzttaid, and Lhai me documents
stieuid be wiumed m this Firm
immediatly. If you have received this
i:i..=·si=·niki in error. please miity vs by
Eelegaimiie §:1l‘i1B€$i&§c|y au that we um
arrange for the retum cf the nrlglnei
dwwmehis no us at m wst in you.
if you did mai receive alt of the pages cr iind thatthey are iilegibie, please call UG3) T44-BGGO.

Case 1:04-cv-00174-JJF Document 103-3 Filed O3/18/2005 Page 3 of 4
0:·,r07#24JU5 17 : 31 FAX #.-sum
t ‘_ BQBA Wasrparx Drive
EFAITUN BUGBS
HHRRHS H LH M M¤L»m.x·m·vr0:¤»mw
rnmm-accu
Fscsirrriiza ?B3·?4—é—E!’}£‘%
WWW piilllsrrbugggé Emu
March 7, 2005 §%`§;.;`;f;‘S;5
KHcH@p¤r:¤nb¤Sgs.wm
Pmcticc Limirxd T0 Mmmm
Bufnrc Fwiml Cnuru
VIA FAC§iM[LE
Jason A. Licf, Esq,
Marg:-m Mwis
IO} Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178-0060
Rc: Benfmc Ausrralia Ltd. v. Nuciezawzims, Inc., Civil Amon No. G4 CV EO4
Dam Jason:
1 am Wlitiflg in response to yam: March 3, 2005 letter rcgardiug our telephone conference
regarding Nuc1c0nics’ Motion ua Campcl and BcniLcc’s coniampiaicd Marion for Pmécctiva
Order.
As you know, the Courfs Dcwmbcr EE}, 2004, Orécr wrprcssiy stayed $.21 disccvczy cxccpt for
the twcn items Eistcd therein, bath of which have new been complrziaci. Judge Faman stared in
his Grdcr that, °‘0nce the permitted discovery is completed, I will schedule other ncccssafy
discovery and case: dispositive m0ticms." (DJ. 74). Thus, contrary io the position you took
during our tciwpham conference amd iu yum latter, disccnvcry in this casa is currcrrtly smyed
pending fluther imshuctions Exam the Cum. While Bcnitcc iricd rmsucccssfuliy to cooperate
with you regarding, these issues, you instead chose to embark on am ud hominum attack to
build a false record of delay by Bcrritcc. You thm ciwsc to resort to Lzrmrzccssaxy mation
practice. Thus, Brmitcc intends to prccccd in acccraimmcc with thc C0m·t’s Order amd, based
cm your refusal to rio sc, will submit a E\/icrticn fur Protective Order to prcchxés the continued
noticing of depositions ofindlvéduais amd Bmitcc.
It i$ nccczssary to address your motion to ccmpel and rclcnrlcss attempts :0 portray Benitez: as
causing dciay in this cass. During our March 3, 2005, telephone call, wc requested that you
withdraw your motion on several wail-founded grounds. At the cuism, you failcé. to comply
with thc mcct and confer requirements scr forth in the icncal mias and thc Court Order
currently in place. Addiiicmaily, wc-: span! an inoxciinatc amount of time working with you tc
Rack inte dates of availability for thc witnesses you had nutimd slwuié. the Court determine
additional discovery is ncasssary. Your unyiclding demands for instzmtanccmns dapcsiuicm
kvasiringrmn IBC i Northern Virginia \ Datias Q Denver [ Anchorage i1cha.Â¥3az&r

Case 1:04-cv-00174-JJF Document 103-3 Filed O3/18/2005 Page 4 of 4
¤az_ar.~z¤¤s rmi rss ems
r? l
. no PAHUNHU68Ss
HIHIEH il LHP
Eason A. Lief, Esq.
. Mares 7, 2005
Page 2 of 2
dates, followed by your immediate refusal to accept the dates offered and your improper
motion to compel in light of the Court Order, has forced Benitez to incur additional
`zlI'l1’1¢€·%SS&T'y’ *3Xp€I3tS€ 3116 BggTB.V&l§i01'1.
As for your constant complaints about Mr. Reeds. deposition, it shoulé be noted that Mr.
Reed lives im Australia, suffered a severe heart attack lest May, amd was forced to have éouble
triple bypass surgery. Your insistence that he iust get on s plane to suit your convenience is
tmconscioneble. As for his stems within the oomperiy, despite his “retiremeot," he remains
active in the c:ompe.oy’s business activities and his "retizement" poses no risk to Nueleoriies
that he will be unwilling or unable to cooperate above and beyond his health. issues.
Agein, please be advised that subject to the Cou1t’s Order, Benitec will not proceed with any
depositions (noticed or unnoticed) umil such time as the Court fixrther éireots what, if amy,
discovery rezrneios to be conducted io this case prior to trial. It remains Benitecfs position that
ciiscovery is closed and this matter should. proceed to trial. Should the Court conclude
` otlrerwise, both parties wi!} be able to request the discovery they deem necessary.
evin M. Bell
K.l\/EB}m:t1l
oo: John W. Shaw, Esq.
364712Evi

Case 1:04-cv-00174-JJF

Document 103-3

Filed 03/18/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00174-JJF

Document 103-3

Filed 03/18/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00174-JJF

Document 103-3

Filed 03/18/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00174-JJF

Document 103-3

Filed 03/18/2005

Page 4 of 4