I K U Larissa A. Socoali
*******1** ‘··*····*·· air x2t2;o¤a.644s
` K E hl Y m N 1s;;g§o!§@kenyon.com
inteliectual Property Law
One Broadway _
New vm, my 1¤¤o·s—w0?
2"i2..425.72D9
Fax 212.·t25,s·2t%$
April 22, 2005
Bg Facsimile
Rodgoy D. Smith, Esq.
Morris, Nichols, Axsht & Ttmncl
12Gi North iviarkct Street
PB. Box 1347
Wiimington, DE 19899—·1347
Rc: GTECH Corp. v. Scicutiiic Games International, Ima., ci mi
[B. De!. CA. N0. 8'·¢··-133-JJFQ
Doa: .Rodge1·:
We have your letter oftoday responding to mine- ofAp1·il 29 and 20**.
With regard to tho design cioou:1·1cr1ts_, your response: makes it cioat that Soientific Games
has not been forthcoming conccming its dooumont production in this case. First, in its rc-sponss
to GTECH’s- document requests? Sczicntific Games refused to produce: my documents conoomiug
subsystems or compomnts of P1ayCon€:ai and suppliers thcrcoi- (Sec, zig. responses to requests
23 and 24). in response to GTECI~i’s foiiowmp inquiries coucomimg the design documents ibr
tho-`outstcig Soiontiiio Games responded that it had conducted at reasonable scarcl; ami produced
responsive documents, E1 statement which wc bclicvcdto bo dubious atbost particularly since
Scientific Games obviously possesses (and has produc:c:d)d¢sig11 documents For at-most ovary
subsystem in the F'iayCo11traI except tim burstcr. (See yam April 15*** fottcr to mc at 2, 3). Your
latter of today, whitzh states that design. dooumonts for the bursts: “wiH be pzoduccdf has now
confirmed our suspicions that such docum cuts in fact exist ami have boar; withhcid to date, There
is simpiy no excuse for this bciatcd promise of production, particularly just days boiiors
depositions of Scientific Games witnesses are scheduled to go forwarzzi.
Please provide thc: design documents to us by tom arrow. lf wc have no1;rcc·c.ivo
any other dcpo-Sitions of Scientific Ga.mcs‘ witncsscs that tmnspirc prior to receipt ofthe
documents, and sock costs from Scientific Games for any contiziucci depositions damned
necessary to inquire conccming those documents.
With regard. to the software, we understand that you are now refusing to produce thc
softwam on (improper) rclcvancy grounds. The sofcwaxc amd tciatod documcntaticn highly
relevant to thc G'i`ECH’s irzfringcmont ciaims- and is certainly discoverablc information as wc
New York Washington, BG Sitlaon Vatley www.kcnyc¤.c¤¢¤
Case 1 :04-cv-00138-JJF Document 57-3 Filed O4/29/2005 Page 2 of 2
Redgcr D. Smith, Esq.
April 22, 2965
Page 2 [
have previeusiy explained to you. We are taking this matter up with the Court.
Finally, we understand from your letter that you have not searched the files of Scientific:
Game? subsiciiaries and xeleted entities {other than the named parties.} for responsive .doeumems.
Documents Scientific Games has- produced in discovery make it ebtmdzmtly clear that at least the
subsidiaries such as Autotote, Onli-nc Enierteinment Systems and Scientific Games Racing ere
involved} in the design, manofeetme, andfor distrileution of the accused P12yCentmI. (See,
{mer alia SCEUO9917, SCIB177?-1, SCl¢3l545S_, SCEG98S94, ${30989-I`6, SCIOQI l ?l) [Pleas-e
reconsidfzr your position and produce responsive documents from these subsidiaries end any
other Scientific Games subsidiary or related entity immeéiately.
Sincerely, X
Larissa A. Soccoli l
Temim P, @3
Case 1:04-cv-00138-JJF
Document 57-3
Filed 04/29/2005
Page 1 of 2
Case 1:04-cv-00138-JJF
Document 57-3
Filed 04/29/2005
Page 2 of 2
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms