Free Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv—00027-SLR Document 120-2 Filed 06/17/2005 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
GUARDIAN INDUSTRIES CORP., )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Case N0.:
v. > 05-27-sux
)
DELL, INC.; GATEWAY, INC.; HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.; ) Jury Trial
ACER INC.; ACER AMERICA CORP.; ) Dcmanded
AOC INTERNATIONAL; ENVISION PERIPHERALS, INC.; )
TPV TECHNOLOGY, LTD.; TPV INTERNATIONAL (USA), )
INC.; AU OPTRONICS CORP.; AU OPTRONICS )
CORPORATION AMERICA A/K/A AU OPTRONICS )
AMERICA, INC.; BENQ CORP.; BENQ AMERICA CORP.; )
CHUNGHWA PICTURE TUBES, LTD. A/K/A CHUNGHWA )
PICTURE TUBES CO.; TATUNG CO.; )
TATUNG CO. OF AMERICA, INC.; BOE HYDIS g
TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.; BOE HYDIS AMERICA INC.; )
CHI MEI OPTOELECTRONICS; COMPAL ELECTRONICS, )
INC.; HANNSTAR DISPLAY CORP.; JEAN CO., LTD.; )
LITE-ON TECHNOLOGY CORP.; LITE-ON, INC. A/K/A )
LITEON TRADING USA, INC.; MAG TECHNOLOGY CO., )
LTD.; MAG TECHNOLOGY USA, INC.; PROVIEW )
INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, LTD.; PROVIEW )
TECHNOLOGY, INC.; PROVIEW ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; )
and QUANTA DISPLAY, INC. )
)
Defendants. )
)
DECLARATION OF MEREDITH ZINANNI
I, Meredith Zinanni, make the following Declaration in support of Guardian’s
Motion for Consolidated Briefing Schedule Regarding Defendants’ Motions to Stay. I
declare and state as follows:
1. I am a member in good standing ofthe bar ofthe State of Illinois. I am an
associate with the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, counsel for Plaintiff Guardian
Industries Corporation (“Guardian") in the above—referenced matter.
I

Case 1 :05-cv—00027-SLR Document 120-2 Filed 06/17/2005 Page 2 of 4
2. I have personal knowledge of all facts set forth in this Declaration, and could
testify to these facts if called to do so.
3. On April 7, 2005, I spoke with Jeff Snyder, counsel for Envision Peripherals,
Inc., TPV Technology, Ltd., and TPV International (USA), Inc. (collectively, "the TPV
entities") regarding service of the Complaint and extending the time for Envision
Peripherals to respond to the Complaint. At that time, Mr. Snyder asked whether
Guardian intended to stay the case against those parties that do not manufacture the LCD
modules, as was done in the CEA case (Commissariot cz l Energie Atomique v. Dell
Computer Corporation, 2004 WL 1554382 (D. Del. May 13, 2004)).
4. On May 1 1, 2005, I was contacted by Rich Horwitz, counsel for eight
defendant groups, requesting that the scheduling conference be postponed until after all
parties had answered. Mr. Horwitz sent an e—mail following up on our conversation on
May 12, 2005, indicating that approximately twelve defendants wanted to postpone the
scheduling conference.
5. On May 19, 2005, at the defendants’ request, the parties held a teleconference
to discuss postponing the scheduling conference until after all defendants had answered.
During that teleconference, the defendants brought to Guardian’s attention Judge
Jordan’s May 18, 2005 decision in Honeywell v. Apple Computer, Inc., C.A. No. 04-
1338-KAJ to stay the case against the non-manufacturing defendants. The defendants
stated that they believed a similar approach, staying the case against the OEMs and
resellers until after the LCD manufacturers had completed litigation, would be
appropriate in this case.
2

Case 1 :05-cv—00027-SLR Document 120-2 Filed 06/17/2005 Page 3 of 4
6. Guardian accommodated the defendants’ request, and on May 25, 2005, the
parties agreed to postpone the scheduling conference until the week of June 27, 2005. In
e—mail correspondence with the Court, the scheduling conference was set for June 29,
2005 at 9:00 a.m.
7. The parties held a meet and confer regarding the proposed scheduling order on
June 7, 2005 pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). All parties were represented on that call.
At that time, defendants notified Guardian to expect several motions to stay "over the
next few days," but the precise filing dates and the identity of the parties who would be
filing such motions was not disclosed.
8. On June 15, 2005, I spoke with counsel for Dell, Gateway, and Lite~On. I
requested an extension of time for respond to these parties’ Motions to Stay until June 28,
2005, the date on which Guardian’s response to the Motion to Stay by Tatung and Jean is
due, so that Guardian could file a single consolidated response with the Court. Counsel
indicated that Dell, Gateway, and Lite—On were not opposed to a consolidated brief, but
that they would not extend the time for Guardian to file such a brief unless the scheduling
conference was postponed further, such that all briefing on the Motions to Stay would be
completed before the scheduling conference was held. U
9. On June 16, 2005, I sent an e—mail to counsel for all defendants, asking
whether any additional defendants intended to file a Motion to Stay. In retum e—mails,
counsel for Hewlett-Packard indicated it would be filing a Motion to Stay on June 16 or
17, 2005; counsel for MAG and Proview indicated they would be filing a Motion to Stay
"early next week at the latest," and counsel for the TPV entities indicated they also would
be filing a Motion to Stay early next week.
3

i Case 1 :05-cv—00027-SLR Document 120-2 Filed 06/17/2005 Page 4 of 4
O I declare the foregoing to be true and correct under penalty of perjury under the
law;. of the United States, and that this Declaration was executed on June 17, 2005, in
Chicago, Illinois. /.·“ I,
.V/I
. .»·'/
/ . -
\__/ Me 1 Z"
4