Case 1 :05-cv-00292-JJF Document 187 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 1 of 4
222 D12r.AwAiu2 Avrwus, Sum; 900
P.O. BOX 25150
w . = · DE 19899
3*} P ;;iI\Dl€l.lVliREliS: 19801
A T T O R N E Y S IQILVMEEXITAS I./XW FIRMS WORLDWIDE
www bayardfirin com
\Y/iurrirs Duuzcr Aocuss
May 5, 2006
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
United States District Court
844 North King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
RE: LG.Philzps LCD C0., Ltd. v. T atung Company of Amercia, et al.
C.A. No. 05—292—,J,J_E
Dear Judge Farnan:
Plaintiff LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LPL") respectfully submits this letter
in opposition to Defendants’ request to preclude LPL from taking previously agreed—upon
depositions in this case.1 Months ago, after extensive negotiations, the parties agreed that
depositions would include up to thirty-tive (35) hours of Rule 30(b)(6) testimony per
party and up to four (4) individual witness depositions per party. See Joint Rule 16
Scheduling Order, jointly submitted to the Court on December 7, 2005 (D.I. 36); see also
signed Order (D.I. 62). Now, just days away from the start of depositions, Defendants
unfairly seek to limit LPL to only tive (5) hours of 30(b)(6) testimony (an 86% reduction)
and one individual witness (a 75% reduction) for Tatung, Tatung America, and
ViewSonic. Defendants also attempt to reduce CPT’s 30(b)(6) testimony to only twenty
(20) hours. Defendants’ unfair request should be denied.
Defendants’ proposed limitations would make it nearly impossible for LPL to
obtain critical evidence. During meet and confer discussions on numerous document
issues, Defendants’ counsel repeatedly have taken the position that LPL’s only recourse
to get information about various issues and documents is to ask witnesses at depositions.
In addition, Defendants previously designated multiple 30(b)(6) representatives for each
Defendant. See, ag., Feb. 7, 2006 e—mail (designating multiple Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses
each for Defendant) (Ex. 1). CPT designated four representatives (including one for the
I "Defendants" in this case are Tatung Company ("Tatung"), Tatung Company of America, Inc. ("Tatung
America"), Chunghwa Picture Tubes, Ltd. ("CPT"), and ViewSonic Corporation ("ViewSonic").
Case 1 :05-cv—00292-JJF Document 187 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 2 of 4
The Honorable Joseph J. Fanran, Jr.
THE BAYARD FIRM May 5, 2000
‘ 121 patent, now moot) and Tatung, Tatung America, and ViewSonic each designated
three witnesses. To compound matters, all or virtually all of the Defendants’ witnesses
will require translators. See Ex. 1. Under these circumstances, the agreed-upon thirty-
five (35) hour limit for Rule 30(b)(6) depositions was conservative from the start. CPT,
for example, has identified three Rule 30(b)(6) desigrrees unrelated to the ‘ 121 patent, all
of which require translation. Factoring in the delay caused by translating each question
and answer, this could result in LPL having less than one full day of testimony per
witness under the current limitation of thirty—five (35) hours.
Similarly, LPL needs the ability to depose up to four individual witnesses per
Defendant. Defendants may call numerous witnesses at trial as identified in their initial
disclosures on issues unrelated to the ‘ 121 patent: CPT (4 individuals), Tatung (6
individuals), Tatung America (4 individuals), and ViewSonic (9 individuals). And,
Defendants are preparing to amend their disclosures and thus may plan to identify
Defendants’ counsel first raised this new proposal in a May 4 teleconference, and
Defendants’ counsel was unable to identify or limit the number of trial witnesses for any
Defendant so that LPL could attempt to narrow the depositions. Defendants’ proposal
would deprive LPL of the opportunity to depose potential trial witnesses in advance,
contrary to the rules of discovery. In short, granting the relief sought by Defendants
would put LPL at a clear disadvantage.
Further, Defendants’ are not, as their letter suggests, merely responding to LPL’s
withdrawal of the ‘l21 Patent claims on May 1. Rather, Defendants requested curtailing
LPL’s deposition discovery at the April 25, 2006 hearing — before there was any
suggestion that the ‘12l Patent claims might be withdrawn. At the April 25 discovery
hearing, Defendants’ counsel asked the Court, for example, to limit LPL to only two
individual depositions and ten (10) hours of Rule 30(b)(6) testimony for Tatung, Tatung
America, and ViewSonic. Defendants’ counsel attempted to justify this proposal because
discovery from Tatung, Tatung America, and ViewSonic "concern[s] issues that go to
damages, what’s coming into the U.S., things like that . . . ," rather than manufacturing
and technical issues. Apr. 25, 2006 Tr. at 19 (Ex. 2). So, limiting discovery was already
on Defendants’ mind before the ‘ 121 Patent was withdrawn from the case.
LPL’s subsequent withdrawal of the ‘ 121 Patent from this case, moreover, does
not support any limitations on depositions. As Defendants’ counsel noted at the April 25
hearing, LPL needs depositions from Tatung, Tatung America, and ViewSonic primarily
to obtain damages—related discovery, not for technical issues or the ‘ 121 patent.2 Apr. 25,
2006 Tr. at 19 (Ex. 3). These defendants know critical information concerning the
2 Whereas CPT manufactures infringing modules on which LPL needs technical discovery, the other three
defendants manufacture, import, offer to sell, and/or sell LCD products that use infringing CPT modules.
Tatung, Tatung America, and ViewSonic purportedly have limited knowledge concerning the CPT modules
used in their products.
Case 1:05-cv-00292-JJF Document 187 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 3 of 4
, The Honorable Joseph J. Faman, Jr.
THE BAYARD HRM May 5, 2000
products using infringing modules and the importation, distribution, and sale of such
infringing products in the United States. Accordingly, withdrawal of the ‘ 121 patent has
no appreciable impact on the scope of discovery from Tatung, Tatung America, and
ViewSonic as agreed to in the Joint Scheduling Order. Because the accused products
likely all infringe the ‘002 Patent, LPL still needs from Tatung, Tatung America, and
ViewSonic the same scope of discovery (for example, discovery regarding the amount of
a reasonable royalty and inducement of infringement).
Regarding CPT, LPL still needs critical technical discovery regarding the full
range of CPT’s modules. Again, the accused modules likely all infiinge the ‘002 Patent,
and LPL also needs critical discovery from CPT related to damages, inducement, and
other issues. At the April 25 discovery hearing, Defendants’ counsel proposed increasing
the 30(b)(6) deposition time for LPL and CPT, stating that "CPT is willing to make its
own witnesses available for forty hours of depositions .... " Apr. 25, 2006 Tr. at 19 (Ex.
3). Now, purportedly based on the withdrawal of the ‘ 121 patent, CPT wants to limit its
deposition to twenty (20) hours total. Yet, CPT has identified four Rule 30(b)(6)
designees, only one of which was designated on the ‘ 121 patent issues. (Ex. 1). ln
addition, like the other Defendants, CPT has identified multiple witnesses in its Initial
Disclosures regarding issues unrelated to the ‘ 121 patent. Considering the importance of
CPT’s evidence (CPT is the sole source of most technical discovery in this case), the
multiple issues that need to be addressed at CPT’s depositions, the fact that CPT is
relying on numerous 30(b)(6) and fact witnesses, and the substantial obstacle of language
translation, LPL needs the agreed—upon depositions and hours to prepare for trial.
Accordingly, LPL respectfully requests that the Court deny Defendants the relief
sought in Defendants’ May 4 letter. Defendants never challenged or objected to the
Scheduling Order prior to the recent April 25 hearing. Allowing Defendants now, at the
last minute, to drastically limit LPL’s ability to obtain discovery — discovery that
Defendants expressly agreed to — would violate the parties’ agreement and would be
fundamentally unfair to LPL.
Richard D. Kirk (#0922)
cc: Clerk of the Court
All counsel as shown on attached certificate
Case 1:05-cv-00292-JJF Document 187 Filed 05/05/2006 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned counsel certifies that, on May 5, 2006, he electronically filed the
foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF, which will send
automatic notification of the filing to the following:
Robert W. Whetzel, Esq.
Matthew W. King, Esq.
Richards, Layton & Finger
One Rodney Sqare
P.O. Box 551
Wilmington, DE 19899
The undersigned counsel further certifies that copies of the foregoing document
were sent on May 5, 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. Glenn 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 (rk0922)
Richard D. Kirk