Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR Document 35 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 1 of 2
MoRR1s, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNEL1.
1201 NORTH MARKET STREET
P.O. Box 1347
W1LM1NGToN, DELAWARE 19899-1347
302 658 9200
JACK B. BLUMENEELD FAX
302 575 7291 .
M .25 .0.2 F,. Arm 10 2005
[email protected]
BY ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
United States District Court
844 King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: McKesson Information Systems v. The TriZetto Group;
C.A. No. 04-1258 {SLR)
Dear Chief Judge Robinson:
I am writing on behalf of Defendant TriZetto in connection with the discovery
conference at 4:30 tomorrow. There are several issues TriZetto wishes to raise.
l. Customer Subpoenas.
McKesson started serving subpoenas for documents on a large ntunber of
TriZetto's most important customers last Thursday and Friday. We have received approximately
twenty—five subpoenas for customers all over the country. TriZetto is concerned about the
impact of these subpoenas on its relationships with its customers. It is clear that many of the
documents are available directly from TriZetto, and thus there is no need to burden third parties
with the obligation to locate and produce such documents. In addition, we do not see the
relevance of many of the documents McKesson is seeking from TriZetto's customers.
2. lnterrogatories and Requests for Admissions.
Although McKesson has responded to interrogatories and requests for admission
propotmded by TriZetto, we believe that there area number of deficiencies in those responses.
For example, McKesson has refused to state definitively (a) all of the TriZetto products that
allegedly infringe, (b) when it first became aware of the alleged infringement, (c) the alleged
dates of conception and reduction to practice of the invention, or (d) which McKesson products
embody the invention. TriZetto has identified these deficiencies in several letters to McKesson's
counsel.

Case 1:04-cv-01258-SLR Document 35 Filed 04/11/2005 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Sue L. Robinson
April ll, 2005
Page 2
3. Protective Order.
Another unresolved issue is the protective order. The parties have been
negotiating for several months, but have not reached a final agreement. The primary
disagreement pertains to the documents to which in-house counsel will have access. We have
proposed a compromise on this issue to McKesson's counsel, but have not yet received a
response.
4. Doctunent Production Status.
To date, TriZetto has produced approximately 45,000 pages of doctunents, and is
in the process of collecting additional documents for production. McKesson has produced
approximately 34,000 pages of documents, and we understand that additional documents are
being collected for production.
5. Discovery Cut-Off Date.
Finally, TriZetto would like to revisit the August 26, 2005 fact discovery cutoff
date. There will be many depositions taken in this case, including many third-party witnesses.
The current schedule requires all depositions to be taken between mid-May and the end of
August, which will likely lead to scheduling difficulties.
In addition, the team of lawyers at the Paul Hastings firm that had been
representing TriZetto for the first six months of this case has recently split up, with several
members going to another firm. As a result, TriZetto has recently retained new lead counsel at
Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher, which is in the process of getting up to speed.
Under the circumstances, we believe it would be prudent to move the discovery
cutoff date back three or four weeks. We have proposed this to McKesson's counsel, but have
not yet received a response.
Respectfully,
/s/ Jack B. Blumenfeld
Jack B. Blumenfeld
JBB/bls .
cc: Peter T. Dalleo, Clerk (By Hand)
Thomas J. Allingham, II, Esquire (By Hand)
Jeffrey G. Randall, Esquire (By Fax)
J effrey T. Thomas, Esquire (By Fax)