Free Answering Brief in Opposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00138-JJF Document 74 Filed 05/12/2005 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES BISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
GTECH CORPORATION,
Plaintifi
v. C.A. No. O4—l38—IJF
SCIENTIFIC GAMES INTERNATIONAL,
INC., SCIENTIFIC GAMES HOLDINGS
CORPORATION, SCIENTIFIC GAMES g
FINANCE CORPORATION, and
SCIENTIFIC GAMES CORPORATION,
Defendants.
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
RE: "BURS'i`ER" DESIGN DOCUMENTS
Defendants Scicntilic Games International, Inc., Scientific Games Holdings
Corporation, Scientific Games Finance Corporation, and Scientiiic Games Corporation
(collectively, "Scientitic Garnes") oppose plaintiff GTECH Corporatiorfs ("G’IECH") motion to
compel production of Scientific Games’ "burster" design documents. Scientiiic Games has
produced its design documents concerning the “burster” mechanism used in the accused
PlayCentraI Kiosk. GTECI~I’s motion should be denied as moot.
I. Scientiiic Games has produced over 107,000 pages of documents in this
litigation, including innumerable documents concerning its "burster." GTECH has also deposed
Scientiiic Games’ witnesses concerning the operation ofthe "hurster”’ in the accused PlayCentraI
Kiosk. The only "burster" design documents that had not been produced until recently were the
electronic CAD ("computer aided design") tiies for the "burster." Scientilic Games produced its
other documents concerning the “burster" months ago.

Case 1:04-cv-00138-JJF Document 74 Filed 05/12/2005 Page 2 of 4
2.
2. Scientific Games believed it had produced all the electronic CAD files for
the accused l?layCentral Kiosk on April 26, 2005. After GTECH indicated that it could not
locate the CAD tiles for the burster among the files produced by Scientific Games, Scientific
Games told GTECH on May 4, 2005, that the CAD files for the "bnrster" may have been
inadvertently omitted from the April 26 production (GTECH Ex. I). Scientific Games agreed to
produce those tiles, and told GTECH that there was ‘“no reason . . . why this matter needs to be
raised with the Court" (id.)
3. Without further communication or discussion with Scientific Gaines, the
next day, GTECH filed its motion (DI. 65). GTECH did not include the required Rule ’7.l.l
Certification with its motion, indicating that the subject matter of the motion could not be
resolved between the parties. Indeed, it had been resolved.
4. Two days later, on May 7, 2005, after determining that the "burster" CAD
files had been inadvertently omitted from the April 26 production, Scientific Games produced
another CD that contained not only the CAI) files for the "burster," but all the CAD files for the
accused PlayCentral Kiosk (Ex. A).
5. GTECH is now attempting to use the inadvertent mix—up concerning the
CAD files to excuse its failure to provide meaningful responses to contention interrogatories
before the Court—ordered April 29, 2005 deadline (D.l. 71). At the same time, GTECH argues
that its contention interrogatory responses are "sufficient and proper," and suggests that they
included "citations to specific documents that Defendants had produced” (id. at l). In fact,
GTECH’s interrogatory responses do not contain a single citation to any documents produced by
defendants {D.I. 64, Exs. B & H). How could they? GTECH responded to Scientific Games’

Case 1:04-cv-00138-JJF Document 74 Filed 05/12/2005 Page 3 of 4
3.
contention interrogatories on August E8, 2004 (D.l. 64, Ex. B). GTECH did not even bother to
serve its document requests in this case until August 27, 2004 (Ex. B).
6. GTECH has also suggested that Scientific Gaines failed to meet-and—~
confer concerning G'§`ECH’s inadequate interrogatory responses (Di. 7l at 2—3). In fact,
Scientific Games raised the deficiencies in GTECH’s responses over eight months ago, in
August 30 and September 28, 2004 letters (D,]. 64, Exs. C & D). The parties subsequentty
agreed several times to postpone the date by which contention interrogatories must be completed,
and ultimately agreed that contention interrogatories would be completed by April 29, 2005.
Despite receiving over 100,000 pages of documents from Scientihc Gaines between
August 2004 and April 2005, GTECH never once bothered to supplement its contention
interrogatory responses, and has never cited a single document produced by Scientific Games.
CONCLUSION
7. G'l`ECI~§’s motion to compel Scientific Games’ "burster" design
documents should be denied.
l\/iORR`lS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
/5/ Rodger D. Smith H

Rodger D. Smith (#3778)
E20] N. Market Street
P.O. Box l347
Wilmington, DE 19899
(302) 658-9200
Attorneys for Defendants
May I2, 2005
464523

Case 1:04-cv-00138-JJF Document 74 Filed 05/12/2005 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1, Rodger D. Smith I1, hereby certify that on May 12, 2005, I caused to be
electronically tiled Det`endants’ Opposition To Plaintiffs Motion To Cornpel Discovery Re:
"Burster" Design Documents with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECP, which will send
notitication of such tiling(s) to the following:
Iosy W. Ingersoll
Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
The Brandywine Building
1000 West Street, 17* Floor
P.O. Box 39}
Wilmington, DE 19899
and that 1 caused copies to be served upon the following in the manner indicated:
BY HAND
fosy W. Ingersoll
Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
The Brandywine Building
1000 West Street, l7"h Floor
PO. Box 39l
Wilmington, DE 19899
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS
Thomas J. Meloro, Esquire
Kenyon & Kenyon
One Broadway
New York, NY 10004
/s/ Rodger D. Smit/z II
Rodger D. Smith H (#3778)
Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell
120l N. Market Street
P.O. Box 1347
Wilmington, DE 19899
(302) 658-9200
[email protected]
Attorneys for Defendants

Case 1:04-cv-00138-JJF

Document 74

Filed 05/12/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00138-JJF

Document 74

Filed 05/12/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00138-JJF

Document 74

Filed 05/12/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00138-JJF

Document 74

Filed 05/12/2005

Page 4 of 4