Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-md-01717-JJF Document 768 Filed 02/27/2008 Page 1 of 2
Pgttgy nieime L. Horwitz
Partn
[Q Anderson naE2,niW
k*,(¤()]f"[’{)Q]f] ]_,[,]§) [email protected] '
302 984-6027 Direct Phone
302 658·ll92 Fax
1313 North Market Street .
PO. Box 95*}
Wilmington, DE 19899-0951
sez sea ence
W.,tm.it.a.,.ttm Febmrr 2*% 2008
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING, E-MAIL AND BY HAND
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti ‘
Blank Rome LLP
Chase Manhattan Centre, Suite 800 ‘
1201 North Market Street
Wilmington, DE 1980 l~4226
Re: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. v. Intel Corporation, et al., CA. ;
No. 05-441 —~JIF; In re Intel Corporation, CA. No. 05-MD-I 7I 7—.IIF,· _
and Phil Paul, et al. v. Intel Corporation, CA. 05-485-JJF
Dear Judge Poppiti:
Intel herewith responds to Al\/lD’s letter to Your Honor of February 13, 2008, regarding
the submission ofthe Weil Gotshal interview materials for in camera review. AMD contends
that Intel’s representation in its February 12, 2008 letter concerning the completeness of its
production of such materials is insufficient, and speciiically points to the phrasing of the
representation regarding "derivative” materials. Intel’s representation, however, is consistent
with its understanding of the expected representation, specifically:
[T]his will confirm that intel has provided for in camera review all interview
notes and follow-up material, that could be located after a diligent search,
reflecting factual information provided by Intel custodians to the Weil attorneys
during the Weil interview process. As discussed during the January 3, 2008 and
February 1, 2008 hearings, the materials provided for in camera review do not
include materials that would be derivative ofthe underlying factual information
learned by the Weil attorneys during the interviews.
AMD specuiates in its February 13, 2008 letter that when drafting a “derivative"
memorandum, "it is likely that the memorandum will include new facts that the attorney
remembered when reviewing his or her contemporaneous shorthand notes." However, AMD’s
concerns are unfounded, and as such Intel believes it previously made the appropriate
representation. However, in the interest of putting this issue to rest without further argument,
Intel represents that, after a reasonable investigation, it has concluded that the "derivative”
materials that were not submitted to the Special Master contain no factual information learned

Case 1:05-md-01717-JJF Document 768 Filed 02/27/2008 Page 2 of 2
The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti
February 27, 2008
Page 2
during Weil’s interviews with the Custodians not otherwise contained in the Weil interview
notes and r`ollow—np materials submitted for in camera review.
Finally, consistent with the above representation, Intel anticipates providing to the
Special Master for in camera review a handful of additional materials that will result from some
t`ollow~up interviews conducted bythe Weil attorneys.
If the Court has any questions of its own, we would be pleased for the opportunity to
respond to them.
Respectfully,
_ Richard L. Horwitz (#2246)
RLH/mho
cc: The Honorable Vincent J. Poppiti (via electronic mail)
Charles Diamond, Counsel for AMD (via electronic mail)
. Michael Hausfeld, Interim Class Counsel (via electronic mail)
Frederick L. Cottrell, III (via electronic mail)
James L. Holzman (via electronic mail)
rssimrzazsz