IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
LG. PHILIPS LCD CO., LTD., )
Plaintiff, ) C. A. N0. 05-292 (JJF) Q
v. ) DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL _
TATUNG COMPANY; ) Q
TATUNG COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC.; )
CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES, LTD.; )
AND VIEWSONIC CORPORATION, )
NOTICE OF LODGING OF E-MAIL COMMUNICATION
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendants Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., Tatung
Company, Tatung Company of America, Inc., and Viewsonic Corporation hereby lodge a copy
of an e—mail communication from Robeit W. Whetzel, Esquire, to the Honorable Joseph J.
Farnan, Jr. dated June 19, 2006, a copy of which is attached h .
Robert W. Vifhetzel (#2
OF COUNSEL: whetzel@rlf com ?
Christine A. Dudzik Matthew W. King (#4566)
Thomas W. Jenkins l
321 North Clark Street, Suite 3400 One Rodney Square, P.O. Box 551
Chicago, Illinois 60610 Wilmington, DE ‘ 19899
(312) 595-1239 (302) 651-7700 J
I Attorneys for Defendaiits/Comiterclaimants .
Teresa M. Corbin Tatung Company, Tatung Company of ?
Glenn W. Rhodes · America, Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd, and
Howrey LLP Viewsonic Corporation
525 Market Street, Suite 3600
San Francisco, CA 94105
Dated: June 19, 2006
Case 1:05-cv-00292-JJF Document 226 Filed 06/19/2006 Page 2 gil he 1 Om
King, Matthew W.
From: Whetzel, Robert W.
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 3:36 PM 1
Cc: ‘Bono, Gaspare'; 'Dick Kirk'; 'Corbin, Terry'; 'Gabler, Julie'; 'Rhodes, Glenn'; Flneman, Steven; King, i
Subject: L.G Philips v Tatung America, et al, CA. No. 05-292 JJF - Emergency Matter
Dear Judge Farnan:
I write on behalf of Defendants Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd., Tatung Company, Tatung i
Company of America, Inc. and Viewsonic Corporation (collectively "CPT"), seeking emergency leave
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(d) to continue the deposition of Mr. Scott Holmberg, the
sole inventor of the `002 patent in suit and a critical witness in this action, for an additional seven hours.
Trial is scheduled in this action for July 17, which is 28 days from today and therefore it is urgent that
CPT receive leave promptly to complete the deposition of the inventor ofthe patent in suit.
Defendants submit that an additional seven hours to complete the inventor's deposition is critical
and warranted here given, as explained below: (1) he testified during his seven hour deposition on June
15 that he will not be available to testify at trial, (2) he is a critical fact witness in this case, (3) this
critical fact witness is within the control of and being paid as a consultant on an hourly basis by plaintiff
L.G. Phillips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPL"), (4) he has diabetes and certain other health issues that caused him
to wander and respond slowly in his answers to CPT counsel's questions, (5) CPT counsel was not able
to complete l\/Ir. I-Iolmberg's deposition on June 15, and (6) counsel for LPL has refused requests to
continue the deposition of Mr. Holmberg. I
Federal Rule 30(d) provides: "Unless otherwise authorized by the court or stipulated by the
parties, a deposition is limited to one day of seven hours. The court must allow additional time
consistent with Rule 26(b)(2) if needed for a fair examination of the deponent or if the deponent or
another person, or other circumstance, impedes or delays the examination. " Mr. Holmberg lives in San
Diego, California, and he is the sole inventor of the `002 patent that LPL is accusing CPT of infringing
in this action. Mr. Holmberg, as the inventor of the `002 patent, is a critical fact witness in this case.
CPT took Mr. Holmberg's deposition for seven hours in San Diego, California, on June 15, 2006. ;
Significantly, Mr. Holmberg testified that he does not plan to testify at trial in this action in Delaware, (
thus a deposition is the only opportunity that CPT will have to examine this critical witness. (Holmberg l
Dep. Trans. at 194.) Moreover, Mr. Holmberg is within LPL's control (LPL made l\/lr. Holmberg l
available pursuant to a notice of deposition - no subpoena was required) and there is no undue burden on I
l\/lr. Holmberg by having to give an additional day of deposition testimony. Earlier in the case, LPL
attempted to designate Mr. Holmberg as a consulting expert and to disclose CPT confidential _
information to him, but the Court ordered that LPL could not do so (See D.I. 173); so LPL used him as a
paid testifying fact witness instead. Mr. Holmberg testified that he is a paid consultant working for
plaintiff LPL in this action at an hourly rate of $350/hr, and that he spent 14 hours during the two days
prior to the June 15 deposition preparing and reviewing documents with LPL's counsel. (Holmberg Dep.
Trans. at 8-10 and 190-192.)
Counsel representing Mr. Holmberg and LPL at the deposition on June 15 advised CPT counsel .
during a break that Mr. Holmberg has diabetes and that his blood sugar was fluctuating absent frequent
breaks and requested breaks as necessary to avoid causing any injury to the witness, which CPT counsel l
of course complied with throughout the deposition. Mr. Holmberg's health issues caused him to wander
significantly and respond very slowly in his answers to CPT counsel's direct questions, which
Case 1 :05-cv-00292-JJF Document 226 Filed 06/19/2006 Page 3 gf? 2 Om
significantly delayed the deposition.
CPT counsel attempted to move through the deposition on June 15 quickly and efficiently, but
was unable to complete Mr. Ho1mberg's deposition within seven hours. CPT counsel requested, during t
an afternoon break in the deposition, to stay overnight in San Diego and continue Mr. Ho1mberg's T
deposition for an additional seven hours the next day, June 16, or any day that is convenient for the 1
witness. LPL counsel refused to permit any additional deposition of this witness absent an order from
the Court. (Holmberg Dep. Trans. at 208.) Q
CPT respectfully requests that the Court order LPL to make Mr. Holmberg available within the
next 5 business days for an additional seven hours to complete his deposition. CPT further requests that Z
the Court order LPL to bear the travel costs for CPT counsel to travel to San Diego for a continuation of i
this deposition that should have occurred on June 16, 2006. 2
We are available at the convenience of the Court, in person or by telephone, should Your Honor
have any questions concerning this application.
Respectfully submitted, E
Robert W. Whetzel
Richards, Layton & Finger
P.O. Box 551
Wilmington, DE 19899
(302) 651-7634 (Direct) ‘
(302) 651-7701 (Fax) 1
Case 1 :05-cv-00292-JJF Document 226 Filed 06/19/2006 Page 4 of 4 I
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE .
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I
I HEREBY CERTIEY that on June 19, 2006, I electronically filed the foregoing
· document with the Clerk of Court using CM/ECF which will send notification of such filing, and
hand delivered to the following:
Richard D. Kirk i
The Bayard Finn
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900 i
P.O. Box 25130 .
Wilmington, DE 19899
I hereby certify that on June 19, 2006, I sent the foregoing document by Electronic Mail, 1
to the following non—registered participants:
Gaspare J. Bono
Matthew T. Bailey
Andrew J. Park
McKenna. Long & Aldridge LLP
1900 K Street, NW Q
Washnigton, DC 20006 .
Matthew W. King (#45 66) ·
One Rodney Square Q
P.O. Box 551 Q
Wilniington, DE 19899 i