Free Affidavit - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF
01/25/2000 10:53 FAX 585 423 5910

Document 108-4

Filed 02/09/2006

Page 1 of 3 Boo1

WARD NORRIS HELLER

Ward N - ILller & Rcidy LLP o$
300 $`take S t r e e t Rochcstcr, New Yo& 14614 Telephonoi 585-454-0?00

Fax: 585-423-5910

FAX COVER SHEET

To:

Ronald J. Schutz, Esq. Lani R.Miller, Esq. Kenneth L.Nissly, Esq. Micl1acl J. Summmsgill, Esq. Caroline Mchtye, Esq.
Eric J. W a d , Esq.
St. Clair v. Sarnsung, et al. Case NO. 04-CV-143G-JJF

Fax No.:

(612) 339-4181 (202) 383-5414

(408)287-8040 (61 7) 526-5000
(408) 297-6000

From;
Climt/Matter:

Date:

January 26,2006

Number of Pages (including this cover sheet):

3

COMMENTS:

PRIVILEGE AN 0 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE TIIE INFORMATION IN THE3 TELECOPY I INTENDED FOR T-E NAMED S II RECTPZENTS ONLY. I MAY C O N r A M PRIVILEFRD AND CONFIDENTIALMATTER T IF YOU HAVE RECEiVED THIS TELBCQPY IN ERROR, PLEASE N O T F f Us IMMEDIATELYBY A COLLECT TELWI-IONE cmr, TO (585) 4s4-0700AND m m T H E OIUGINAL TO THE SENDER BY MAIL. WE WILL RBIMhlTRSE YOU FOR POSTAGE DO NOT DISCLOSE T I E CONTENTS TO ANYONE. THANK YOU.

PAGE 113* RCVD AT 112512006 3:54:35 PM (Central Standard Time] * SVR:MP4UGHTFAXW * DNIS:612* CSID:585 423 5910 * DURATION (mrn+s):00m50

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF
01/25/2000 10:53

Document 108-4

Filed 02/09/2006

Page 2 of 3
@a 0 2 I

FAX 585 423 5 9 1 0

WARD NORRIS HELLER

WARD NORRIS HELLER REIDYLLP Q
ATTORNEYSAT U W

3 0 0 STATR 9 T R E E T RoCHBSTER. N E W Y O N K 1 4 6 1 4
5115.454.0700 Fna; 585,423,5910

Eric .I. Wud
(585) 454-0714
cj@wn hr.cwn

January 25,2006

VIA FACSIMILE and U,S. MAIL
Ronald J. Schutz, Esq. Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, LLP 2800 LaSalle Plaza 800 LaSalle Avenue Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015

Re:
Dear Ron:

Mirage Systems. Inc. v. St. Clair, et al. Cu. Suporiur Cowl (Sm#a Clara Countyl I-05-CY-O39I 64

Thank you for your letter of January 24,2006. Although we disagree with your assertioii that Judge Jacobs-May "directed' Rod& to produce the Assct Purchase A@-e-eeincnt, listened to her recommendation and produced the we M A as an accommodation to you. As we noted, we produced that document for the piirposes of the California litigation only. We moved to stay and also moved for a protective order to stay discoveiy in St. CIair v. Sumsurzg in Delaware. In view of the pendency of lhese motions, we did not produce the M A i n that action. So there is no confusion on the point, we do not consent to the use of the APA in any litigation o h r than Mirage v. St. Cfcdr in California. We recognize that our production of the APA was not part of an agreement that St. Clair would, in retuin, produce certain documents. We were under the impression that, in Ihe spirit of cooperation, and in light of Judge Jacobs-May's cominents at the hearing on the dmurrers, St. Clair simply would produce materials to which we clearly are entitled, such as transcripts and declarations of current and fomm Mirage employees, and exhibits relevant to their testimony or declarations. It sounds from your letter as though you xe unwilling to provide these materials voluntarily. I am not sure I understand why, but in any evcnt, these documents are responsive to deniaids we recently scrved in Mirage v. St, Clair in California. Having made the request in the

PAGE 213 * RCVD AT 112512006 3:54:35 PM [Central Standard Time] * SVR:MPnRIGHTFAXW * DNISi1i* CSID:585 423 5910 * DURATION (mm~ss):00m50r ~

e i ~ J .l E&

~

a

~

Case 1:04-cv-01436-JJF
01/25/2006 1 6 : 5 3 FAX 585 423 5910

Document 108-4

Filed 02/09/2006

Page 3 of 3
@i 003

WARD NORRIS HELLER

Ronald J. Schutz, Esq. January 25,2006

Page 2
California action, we are under no obligation, as you suggest, to make an additional request for the same dcwxrncnts in Delaware. Nor would such n request be appropriate in view of OUT position that the Delaware actions should be dismissed and/or stayed pending the resolution of the California ownership action.
As T understand it, it is St. Clair's position that d discovery on ownership should take l place in St. Chzr v. Sams;un.g. This seems to make St. Clair v. Mirage i Delaware unnecessary, n and consequently, we ask that you voluntarily discontinue that case,

Thank you foi-your consideration. Very truly yours,

Eric 1. Ward

cc:

Lmi R.Miller, Esq. Reiuieth L. Nissly, Esq. Michael. Sumiersgill, Esq. Camline McIntyre, Esq.

PAGE 313 * RCVD AT 112512006 3:54:35 PM [Central Standard Time] * SVR:MPmRIGHTFAXI4 * DNIS:612 * CSID:585 423 5910 * DURATION (mrnmss):0Om50

I