Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

File Size: 111.0 kB
Pages: 3
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 632 Words, 3,713 Characters
Page Size: 614 x 792 pts

Download Letter - District Court of Delaware ( 111.0 kB)

Preview Letter - District Court of Delaware
Case 1 :05-cv-00292-JJF Document 203 Filed 05/31 /2006 Page 1 of 3
222 Dtzimvxizu Aviator, Sum; 900
PO. Box 25150
_ WIl..AllNG'l"()N, DE 19899

A T T O R N E Y S F6El`ilT/%S Li\\t“.‘ l*lliMS WOl%l.tWJ|l>E
www lvziyzircllirm com
(Fix) 302»65s-6595
\X/RlTlil{`S DIRECT /\(1 (302) 429-4208
May 31, 2006
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
United States District Court
844 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
RE: LG.Philips LCD C0., Ltd. v. T cztung Company 0fAmercia, et al.
C.A. No. 05-292-JJF
Dear Judge Farnan:
I write on behalf of plaintiff LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPL"). I have Mr.
Whetzel’s May 30, 2006 letter to the Court (D.1. 200). Mr. Whetzel’s letter notes that
LPL did not include Rule 7. 1.1 certifications with its Motion to Compel Deposition
Testimony and for Sanctions filed May 25, 2006 (D.I. 198) and its Second Motion to
Compel Deposition Testimony and for Sanctions filed May 26, 2006 (D.I. 199). I have
today filed Rule 7.1.1 certifications with respect to each of those motions. (I am
enclosing courtesy copies with this letter.)
Defendants, evidently, would like LPL to withdraw its motions and negotiate with
defendants for the relief requested in the motions. LPL, on the other hand is interested in
preparing this matter for trial commencing on July 17. There is not sufficient time, in the
first place, for defense counsel’s improper deposition behavior, as outlined in the motions
and in the exhibits attached thereto, or secondarily for "negotiations" with defense
counsel designed to gain compliance with proper deposition behavior.
The parties are on a fast track to trial; they need to wrap up their depositions.
LPL’s counsel is well familiar with this Cou1t’s expectations regarding (a) the
preparedness of corporate deponents under Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6); (b) the proper
lodging of objections during depositions; and (c) the need to refrain from consultation
with deponents during depositions. LPL’s counsel repeatedly pointed those matters out
to defense counsel during the depositions in California last week and defense counsel
refused to acknowledge the admonitions. LPL has thus already negotiated with defense
counsel. Further negotiations would appear pointless, especially given the expedited
nature of the discovery track.

Case 1:05-cv-00292-JJF Document 203 Filed 05/31/2006 Page 2 of 3
Th H bl J h J. F , J .
THE BAYARD FIRM G Omg 6 mp Mayznxgoog
Page 2
If defendants believe their deposition behavior was acceptable, they should
promptly respond to LPL’s motions.
Respectfully submitted,
/LW€.,,.,C_JZ (C¢y¢~
Richard D. Kirk (#0922)
cc: Clerk ofthe Court
All counsel as shown on attached certificate

Case 1:05-cv-00292-JJF Document 203 Filed 05/31/2006 Page 3 of 3
The undersigned counsel certifies that, on May 31, 2006, he electronically filed
the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECP, which will send
automatic notification of the filing to the following: —
Robert W. Whetzel, Esq.
Matthew W. King, Esq.
Richards, Layton & Finger
One Rodney Square
P.O. Box 551
Wilmington, DE 19899
The undersigned counsel further certifies that copies of the foregoing document
were sent on May 31, 2006 by email and by hand to the above counsel and by email and
first class mail to the following non—registered participants:
Christine A. Dudzik, Esq. Teresa M. Corbin, Esq.
Thomas W. Jenkins, Esq. Glemi W. Rhodes, Esq.
Howrey LLP Julie Gabler, Esq.
321 North Clark Street Howrey LLP
Suite 3400 525 Market Street
Chicago, IL 60610 Suite 3600
San Francisco, CA 94105
/s/ Richard D. Kirk grk0922)
Richard D. Kirk