Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :06-cv-00726-JJF Document 364 Filed 07/30/2008 Page 1 of 2
Potter
M CAnderson
HN OITOOH LLP Philip A. Rovner
Partner f
img North Mmm gmt [email protected]
pg BOX gg; (302) 984-6340 Direct Phone ‘
wlmmgt0¤,0s 19899-0951 (302) 658** 192 Fax
sez @46000 ~l1llY 30, 2008
wwvup0ttcra11derso11.com
BY E-FILE
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware
U.S. Courthouse
844 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE l980l
I Re: LG Display Co., Ltd. v. Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation, et al.,
D. Del., C.A. No. 06—726—JJF
AU Optronics Corporation v. LG Display Co., Ltd., et al.,
D. Del., C.A. N0. 07-357-·JJF — Consolidated 1
Dear Judge Farnan:
In accordance with the Court's July 29, 2008 Order (DJ. 361), defendant Chi Mei
Optoelectronics Corporation ("CMO") respectfully submits that it does not believe it is subject to
the Courts July 7, 2008 Order regarding the procedures AU Optronics ("AUO") and LG Display
Co., Ltd. ("LGD") would use to protect each other's "Product Files" because, in 2007, CMO and
LGD had reached a separate agreement regarding the precautions they would use to protect each
otl1er's "Product Files," and they have successfully exchanged such files pursuant to this
agreement. Accordingly, CMO was not a party to the dispute before the Court that led to the
July 7 Order. CMO has confirmed with LGD that it will continue to fully abide by the
confidentiality restrictions CMO and LGD negotiated for "Product Files? The dispute between
AUO and LGD does not present a legitimate reason for LGD to try to renegotiate its agreement
with CMO — a deal that worked without problem for months prior to the AUO—LGD dispute.
The agreement between LGD and CMO outlining the protective measures that restrict
access to each others "Product Files" is retlected in Paragraph 4 of each ofthe proposed
Protective Orders submitted by CMO and LGD in connection with LGD’s June 6, 2008 motion,
both versions of which state in relevant part:
Any native tiles designated as HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL can be stored, viewed, or
‘ printed out on paper only on or from stand-alone computers that are not networked to other
computers or servers, and print—outs need to be marked as HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL and with
the source file name.

Case 1 :06-cv—00726-JJF Document 364 Filed 07/30/2008 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, J r.
July 30, 2008
Page 2
CMO and LGD have separately contirmed in writing that each will abide by Paragraph 4
until entry of a final Protective Order by the Court. Prior to that, the parties exchanged draft
Protective Orders that reflected the above agreement. Moreover, CMO and LGD reached
agreement on the secure production of "Product Files" at least as early as December 27, 2007,
the date on which both LGD and CMO produced "Product Files" in the action between CMO and
LGD now pending before this Court as Civii Action No. 08—355. LGI) produced to CMO those
same documents again in this action on June 3, 2008. Further, LGD produced to CMO
additional "Product Files" on June 27, 2008 - the same day LGD made its final submission to the
Court regarding its dispute with ACO. However, it was not until after the Court issued the July 7
Order that LGD asserted that the Order should govern its productions of "Product Files" to
CMO. Should it please the Court, CMO wiil submit all relevant documentation to the Court for
consideration.
Because CMO and LGD had already reached agreement regarding the secure production
of "Product Files" ·- and had already produced "Product Files" to each other pursuant to that _
agreement - there was no dispute between LGD and CMO over the protections to be afforded
these files. it was only LGD and AUO who were unable to reach agreement. LGD thus
requested relief from the Court only with regard to AUO: "LG Display respectfully requests that
the Court instruct AUO to immediately produce its "Product Files" in electronic native format to
LG Display's outside counsel pursuant to LG Display‘s proposed safeguards." June 27, 2008,
5:41 p.m. ernail to the Court from Richard D. Kirk. LGD further acknowledged that CMO and
LGI) had successfully exchanged "Product Files" pursuant to the less-burdensome restrictions in
their agreement. See, ag., id. ("AUO proposes unreasonable limitations on LG Displays
counsel's review and use of AUO's Product Files, even though both LG Display and CMO are
new producing their own [Product F]iles without such burdensome limitationsf').
Because CMO was not a party to the dispute between AUG and LGI) regarding "Product
Files," and given that CMO had already negotiated a successful procedure for exchanging such
documents with LGD, CMO does not understand that the Order resolving the dispute between
AUO and LGD was intended to replace its negotiated agreement with LGD.
Respectfully,
Philip A. Rovner
provner(§,2D,potteranderson.com
PAR/mes/876503
Cc: Richard D. Kirk, Esq. —~ By E—mail
Karen L. Pascale, Esq. — By E—ma.il