Free Reply Brief - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 101

Filed 09/05/2008

Page 1 of 11

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 101

Filed 09/05/2008

Page 2 of 11

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 101

Filed 09/05/2008

Page 3 of 11

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 101

Filed 09/05/2008

Page 4 of 11

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 101

Filed 09/05/2008

Page 5 of 11

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 101

Filed 09/05/2008

Page 6 of 11

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 101

Filed 09/05/2008

Page 7 of 11

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 101

Filed 09/05/2008

Page 8 of 11

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 101

Filed 09/05/2008

Page 9 of 11

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 101

Filed 09/05/2008

Page 10 of 11

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 101

Filed 09/05/2008

Page 11 of 11

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 101-2

Filed 09/05/2008

Page 1 of 3

EXHIBIT 9 1

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 101-2

Filed 09/05/2008

Page 2 of 3

From: Richard Kirk Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 1:41 PM To: [email protected] Cc: Rovner, Philip A.; Pascale, Karen Subject: LG Display Co. Ltd. v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics, C.A. No. 06-726 and 07-357-JJF, and Chi Mei Optoelectronics v. LG Display Co., Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 08-355-JFF RE: LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics, et al., C.A. No. 06-726-JJF and 07-357-JJF and Chi Mei Optoelectronics v. LG Display Co., Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 08-355-JFF Dear Judge Farnan: I write on behalf of plaintiff LG Display Co., Ltd. ("LGD") in response to Mr. Rovner's August 6, 2008 e-mail to the Court on behalf of Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation ("CMO"). LGD objects to CMO's use of the Court's emergency procedures for a dispute that should have been raised through standard motion procedures. LGD has several important discovery issues of its own to raise, including CMO's failure to produce essential technical and sales information. LGD believes that requests to compel discovery, however, should be the subject of properly filed motions and responses. Accordingly, LGD requests that the Court either deny CMO's request outright or order CMO to file an appropriate motion to which LGD can fully respond. CMO recently served these three interrogatories in the Texas case after it was transferred here, even though interrogatories were permitted as early as October 2007. CMO did not serve any interrogatories in Texas prior to transfer in May 2008. Instead, CMO waited until after the case was transferred to this Court, and then attempted to avoid scheduling and discovery limitations in Delaware by serving these interrogatories in the transferred Texas case. This was improper because CMO could not have served these interrogatories in the already pending Delaware case as (i) the deadline for service of contention interrogatories had already expired, and (ii) CMO USA had already served two sets of interrogatories on LGD and has exceeded the permissible number of interrogatories permitted by the Scheduling Order. LGD properly objected that the three recent interrogatories are premature in the transferred case (08-355-JJF). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(d). LGD also asserted other appropriate objections, including that the interrogatories (i) are untimely under the Scheduling Order in the Delaware case, (ii) exceed the permissible number of interrogatories, (iii) are vague and ambiguous, and (iv) are overly broad and burdensome such that compiling all of the requested information would require substantial effort and expense that outweighs any relevance or benefit and is contrary to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2)(C)(iii). If CMO wishes to pursue responses in the face of those objections, the proper procedure is to file a motion. Because all of the patents at issue in Texas have been at issue in the Delaware case for several months, there is no excuse for CMO's failure to serve these interrogatories sooner (other than to seek a tactical advantage and obtain additional interrogatories by serving them after the Texas case was transferred to Delaware). Significantly, CMO's motion to consolidate and extend discovery deadlines did not seek additional interrogatories. Thus, if the Court consolidates the Texas case with the Delaware case, CMO will not be permitted to serve these additional contention interrogatories. Respectfully submitted, Richard D. Kirk (rk0922) Bayard 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900 P.O. Box 25130 Wilmington, DE 19899-5130 (19801 for couriers)

Case 1:08-cv-00355-JJF

Document 101-2

Filed 09/05/2008

Page 3 of 3

(302) 655-5000 (main) (302) 429-4208 (direct)