Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case1:05-md-01717-JJF Document 827-5 Filed O3/20/2008 Page1 0f3
i•
i•
<-I—

Case 1 :05-md-01717-JJF Document 827-5 Filed O3/20/2008 Page 2 of 3
ZELLE, HOFMANN, VoELBEL, MASON & GEITE
A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP
BOSTON 44 MONTGOMERY STREET - SUITE 3400 Judith A. Zahid
DALLAS SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94104 [email protected]
Los ANGELES 415-693-0700 TELEPHONE (415) 633-1916
MINNEAPOLIS 415-693-0770 FACSIMILE
SAN FRANCISCO www.zeIIe.com
WASHINGTON, D.C.
BEaJING*
SHANoI—IAI'
‘In association with ZY & Partners
February 28, 2008
Via U.S. and Electronic Mail
Jill D. Neiman
MORRISON FOERSTER
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
[email protected]
Re: In re Intel Corp. Microprocessor Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 171 7-JJ F)
Phil Paul v. Intel Corp. (C.A. No. 05-485-JJF)
Dear Jill:
This letter seeks to memorialize the conversation we had yesterday aftemoon regarding
the transactional data negotiations long underway between AMD, Intel, and the Class Plaintiffs
("the Parties") and you, on behalf of your two clients, Fujitsu Ltd. ("Fujitsu J apan") and Fujitsu
Computer Systems Corporation ("Fujitsu U.S."). When asked, you confirmed to me that the full
U.S. transactional data production that we previously negotiated with you, on behalf of Fujitsu
U.S., had already been collected by your client and sent to you some time back, and upon notice,
could be produced to the Parties in a matter of one or two days. When pressed on why you can’t
produce the U.S. sales data now—particularly so that it could be utilized by the Class Plaintiffs’
economists in time for their report in support of class certification—as I understood your position
to be, you will not agree to produce the U.S. sales data until the Parties finalize their agreement
with your other client, Fujitsu Japan, as to two remaining categories of foreign data. Therefore,
the primary reason that you identified for why you would not produce Fujitsu U.S.’s data, was
that Fujitsu Japan has not yet concluded its negotiations on foreign data.
The Class Plaintiffs do not believe that an attempt to gain negotiating leverage on behalf
of one client is a legitimate reason to withhold data that has been collected by a separate client,
especially in light of the Class Plaintiffs’ imminent class certification motion and the usefulness
that the_withhe1d data would provide to their efforts.
I am writing to ask you to please reconsider your position and to agree to promptly
produce to the Parties the data already collected and sent to you by Fujitsu U.S. If` I do not hear

Case 1 :05-md-01717-JJF Document 827-5 Filed O3/20/2008 Page 3 of 3
J. Neiman
February 28, 2008
Page 2
from you by the close of business next Monday, March 3rd, the Class Plaintiffs intend to seek
relief from the Court.
Regards,
&‘~v>< 0~ ·
Judith A. Zahid
cc: (Via Electronic Mail Only)
Jemiifer Laser, O’Melveny & Meyers
Sam Liversidge, Gibson Drum