Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :07-cv—OO680-IVIPT Document 68 Filed 06/O9/2008 Page 1 of 2
PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT
VU . c1_,SI).1_UC Dv lz .1\ l’llOl·`l·ZSSl(>N~\1. .\SSOCl.\’1`l()Y 1)0vc C:
rll1t>2)88l><-68117m B10 KING STREET, Box 1328 11 N<>1t’111S‘1yt·1‘i? S'l`Rlili'l`
\Vritcr's 'l`clcc<:py Numbcrz; l)O\'liR, l)lZ1..~\\\`.·\R1£ l99(ll
ts1>2;n·s.1¤1 ll ’ 1121.1 (mz) 674-3841
\Vritcr`s l·Z—hT11il 1·\t.ldrcss: TEL: l’1·\X: (302) 674—5864
_1<;1x‘1‘1 11·:Y@p1a¤1<¤1t.Ct1m FAX: (302) 658-8111
http: / / www.prickett.c0m
June 9, 2008
VIA E-FILING
The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge, U.S.M.J.
United States District Court
844 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: Innovative Patents, L.L.C. and Forcefleld, LLC v. Brain-Pad, Inc.,
Docket No. 07-cv-680-MPT
Dear Judge Thynge:
We write to clarify briefly two issues raised by defendant's counsel's letter to the Court of
earlier today:
1. Defendant's letter quotes a series of communications concerning the scheduling of
the Abraham deposition. These communications are not relevant to the issue of when Mr.
Manzo will be made available for deposition. We have offered June dates for Mr. Abraham's
deposition and are awaiting June dates from defendant.
2. Plaintiffs' June 6 letter to the Court stated erroneously that plaintiffs received no
response from defendant after Innovative's June 4 and June 5 communications requesting dates
for Mr. Manzo's deposition. Defendant's counsel did send an email late in the day on June 5, the
text of which appears at Attachment 8 to defendant's counsel's June 9 letter submission.! In that
communication, defendant represented that Mr. Manzo was unavailable for deposition during the
entire month of June. That communication also stated that because of defendant's counsel's
vacation schedule, Mr. Manzo's deposition should proceed sometime after July 16, 2008. This
delay is inconsistent with the schedule ordered by the Court during the May 29 teleconference
and is unacceptable to plaintiffs.
It is with no little reluctance that plaintiffs' counsel raised this scheduling issue with the
Court on Friday afternoon. We did so only after trying and failing to get prompt deposition dates
from Brain-Pad's counsel. Today, plaintiffs' counsel initiated the call to chambers to schedule a
follow-up call to the May 29, 2008 teleconference only after we once more conferred with
I Defendant's counsel's suggestion that plaintiffs' counsel "intended to mislead the court" about defendant's failure to
respond to plaintiffs' requests to schedule Mr. Manzo's deposition is entirely inaccurate. We regret the
misstatement, but it does not change the fact that defendant has continued to refuse to provide prompt dates for Mr.
Manzo‘s deposition as the Court ordered.
2()368.l\370334vl

Case 1:07-cv—OO680-IVIPT Document 68 Filed 06/O9/2008 Page 2 of 2 (
Hon. Mary Pat Thynge
June 9, 2008
Page2
defendant's counsel by telephone and were advised that defendant would not make Mr. Manzo
available prior to June 20.
We are not certain why, given the clarity of the Court's May 29 Order that Mr. Manzo's
deposition proceed promptly, ll days later defendants have failed to offer any June dates.
Defendant's lack of cooperation has compelled us to seek the Court's further assistance.
We are available at the call of the Court to answer any questions Your Honor may have. J
Respectfully,
fa/ef?
J. Clayton Athey ( 437
JCA/lak
cc: John C. Connell, Esq. (via Email)
Charles J. Brown, IH, Esq. (via Email)
Joseph J. Fleischman, Esq. (via Email)
William R. Robinson, Esq., (via Email)
Christopher S. Casieri, Esq. (via Email)
20368.l\370334vl

Case 1:07-cv-00680-MPT

Document 68

Filed 06/09/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:07-cv-00680-MPT

Document 68

Filed 06/09/2008

Page 2 of 2