Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF Document 33 Filed 05/23/2005 Paget of 3
SEnz, VAN Oornop 8 GREEN, RA.
moatms AN¤ <;¤uNsau.¤ns AT uw
zzz DELAWARE AVENUE, surrE asoo
Posromcc sox ee
wu.MnNo·roN, DELAWARE tesco
BERNARD A. VAN OGTROP (302) 8880600
cEoncE H. sEnz, an Writer's Direct Dial: (302) 888-7602 mx; mom aeeoeoe
JAWS S- GREEN Writer's E-Mail Address: [email protected]
**· MRL H"-'— www.lawyers.com/svglaw
PATRICIA F'. McGONlGLE
KB/IN A. GUERKE
May 23, 2005
Via E-file
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
United States District Court
844 King Street
Lock Box 27 `
Wilmington, DE 19801
Re: St. Clair v. Samsung, et al.
C. A. No.: 04-1436 JJF
Dear Judge Farnan:
Enclosed please find a proposed scheduling order submitted by plaintiff in St. Clair v.
Samsung et al. (C.A. 04-1436-JJF). The parties met and conferred, however, could not reach
agreement on a joint proposed scheduling order. Accordingly, each side is submitting a separate
proposal.
One of the major differences between proposals is the timeline for pretrial events and
date of trial. Plaintiffs proposal sets forth a schedule that is more consistent with Your Honor's
May 5, 2005 letter — that this case should be trial ready within 16 months of the tiling date.
Plaintiffs proposal modifies that 16 month schedule slightly, to account for the time spent with
defendants in substantive settlement discussions. As set forth in St. Clair's separate action
against Mirage (Civil Action No. 05-273-JJF), these discussions collapsed after Mirage filed a
lawsuit in California state court. Each of the defendants have now filed answers and St. Clair's
proposal puts this case on track for trial July 2006. Defendants' joint proposal calls for a
complicated sequence of phased discovery and bifurcated trials, which would delay trial of the
infringement case until at least Summer 2007.
Outlined below are specific aspects of Defendants proposed scheduling order, which are
unreasonable and to which St. Clair objects.
48290 v1

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF Document 33 Filed 05/23/2005 Page 2 of 3
The Honorable Joseph J. Faman, Jr.
May 23, 2005
Page 2
Bifurcation and timing. St. Clair opposes Defendants’ proposed phasing of discovery
and bifurcated issues for trial. The phasing and bifurcation proposed would unduly delay
resolution of this case. Defendants proposal subjects St. Clair to more than 21 months of
sequenced discovery, which would unfairly increase the expense of this litigation to St. Clair.
Further, under Defendants' scheme, St. Clair would get no discovery from defendants until
February 2006. Finally, Defendants' proposal sets a final trial for Summer 2007, over two years
from now and more than 32 months after this case was filed.
Number of interrogatories, document request and requests for admission.
Defendants propose 50 interrogatories and 100 requests for admissions for each party. This is
unduly burdensome on St. Clair, who would be in the position of potentially answering 250
interrogatories and 500 requests for admission. St. Clair's proposal of 25 interrogatories per
party, as permitted in Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(a), and 50 requests for admissions is more manageable
and reasonable. This was the number allowed in the St. Clair v. Canon litigation which was
more than sufficient.
Documents from prior litigations. Defendants' proposal requires St. Clair to produce
all pleadings, deposition transcripts, trial transcripts, and exhibits prior to the start of fact
discovery and absent an actual document request. The timing of this proposal unfairly imposes
additional burdens on St. Clair without any reciprocal discovery obligations on defendants.
Moreover, many of these documents are confidential and St. Clair needs permission from third
parties to produce them. As St. Clair proposes, this production should occur during fact
discovery and pursuant to a fonnal request, not outside the ordinary course of discovery.
Depositions. Both plaintiff and defendants propose the coordination of depositions so
that no individual deponent would be deposed more than once in this litigation. Defendants,
however, refuse to agree to St. Clair's proposal to limit an individual deposition to no more than
two days, which offers Defendants more than the time allotted by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 30(d)(2). The two-day limitation St. Clair proposes reduces the likelihood either party
will need to burden the Court with a request to lengthen the time for any individual deposition.
Further, this limitation was agreed to by the defendants in the St. Clair v. Canon litigation and
worked well.
Initial claim charts. The parties agree that St. Clair will produce initial infringement
charts. Further, St. Clair proposes to produce these initial charts very early in discovery, in fact,
before any depositions even begin. (See Paragraph 3(j)). Defendants' proposal, however,
pennits supplementation of St. Clair's claim charts only if permitted by the Court. This
requirement is unreasonable because the initial charts will certainly require supplementation after
defendants produce complete discovery regarding their digital cameras and how they work and
after Defendants' technical witnesses are deposed.
Markman hearing. St. Clair does not believe a Markman Hearing is necessary. The
defendants have not identified any claim terms that have not already been construed by this
Court in the St. Clair v. Sony matter or the St. Clair v. Canon etal. matter.
48290vl

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF Document 33 Filed 05/23/2005 Page 3 of 3
The Honorable Joseph J. Farnan, Jr.
May 23, 2005
Page 3
In conclusion, St. Clair respectfully requests the Court accept St. Clair's Proposed
Scheduling Order.
Very truly yours,
. s
DE No. 66
[email protected]
GHS:drc
Enclosure
cc: Clerk of Court
Steven J. Balick, Esquire (via e-file)
Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire (via e-tile)
Karen Elizabeth Keller, Esquire (via e-tile)
Jack B. Blumenfeld, Esquire (via e-file)
48290 vl