Free Opening Brief in Support - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:99-cv-00005-SLR Document 544-2 Filed 09/22/2005 Page1 0f4

Case 1 :99-cv-00005-SLR Document 544-2 Filed 09/22/2005 Page 2 of 4
vurtrtnzt Dqtrzgou
rpg pcbswuout oygnzrgnc _
City Center Building
140} HSlrce/, NW, Suite 4000
Waxhrnglon, DC 20530
September 15, 2005
By facsimile (202-637-2201)
and electronic mail [email protected])
Margaret M. Zwisler, Esq.
Latham & Watkins LLP
555 Eleventh Sureet, NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004-1304
Re: United States v. Dentsglv International, Inc.: C.A. No. 99-005 {D. Del.)§SLR)
Dear Peggy:
During our telephone call on August 16, we discussed Dentsply’s concems with the language
of our proposed Final Judgment. We have now considered those issues and modified the language of
some ofthe provisions in response to those concerns. We have not included permissive language
relating to possible changes to Dentsply’s distribution system. During our August 16 call, you stated
that Dentsply had not yet decided what, if any, changesit would adopt. Regardless of what Dentsply
has in mind, we believe the language you included in your draft counterproposal is overly broad.
A month has passed since that telephone call, and we are not willing to delay our filing any
longer. We will Gle our motion to enter the judgment in district court tomorrow.
Sincerely,
/s/
I on B. Jacobs
cc: Eric J. McCarthy, Esq. -

Case 1:99-cv-00005-SLR Document 544-2 Filed 09/22/2005 Page 3 of 4

Case 1:99-cv-00005-SLR Document 544-2 Filed 09/22/2005 Page 4 of 4
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division S
City Center Building
1401 HStreet, NW Suite 4000
Washington, DC 20530
August 5, 2005
By facsimile (202-637-2201)
and electronic mail §margaret.z\Nisler(Q),lw.com)
Margaret M. Zwisler, Esq.
Latham & Watkins LLP
555 Eleventh Street, NW
Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004-1304
Re: United States v. Dentsglv International, Inc.; C.A. No. 99-005 QD. Del. NSLR)
Dear Peggy:
On June 24, six weeks ago today, we sent you our proposed final judgment incorporating the
injunctive relief we plan to seek in this case. Since that time, you and I have had a couple of
telephone conversations in which you have raised some general issues of concern to Dentsply, but
we still have not received any kind of counterproposal nom you. Last night, you left me a voice mail
stating that your client had just given you additional feedback and that you were working to
incorporate those concerns into your draft.
The Antitrust Division has agreed to an extension, until September 14, for Dentsply to file a
petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. And as I have told you before, we will not
affirmatively seek to have the district court enter, or even actively consider, this injimctive relief
until after the Supreme Court acts on Dentsply’s petition. But given that Dentsply did not seek a stay
of the Third Circuit’s mandate, we see no reason not to confer and, if necessary, brief the issues
concerning relief as soon as possible so that Judge Robinson can turn to this matter at her discretion.
We would prefer to know the issues in dispute, so we can perhaps narrow those issues, prior to filing
our motion to enter the final judgment. But we also want to keep making progress towards filing that
motion, and that does not seem to be occurring. Therefore, if we do not receive a response nom you
by Friday, August 12, a week from today, we will file our motion on Monday, August 15.
Sincerely,
/s/
Jon B. Jacobs