Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

_ Case 1 :04-cv-01338-JJF Document 558 Filed O9/13/2006 Page 1 of 2
t erm
AllCI€I`S()1”t ntcrmru 1.. Horwitz
és COITOOI] LLP l°?"“°’
Attorney at Law
I3 E3 North Market Street rhorwitz@pctteranderson com
P O Box 951 302 984-6027 Direct Phone
Wilmington, nt; t9899-0951 302 658-t 19.2 Fax
302 984-6000
WW\\».r[}0I'IE!“3I[\(IOT'S()Il~CUIlI
September I3, 2006
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
United States District Court for the District of Delaware
844 King Street, Lockbox 10
Wilmington, Delaware 1980l
Re: Horzeywell Internrrtiomrl Inc., ct nl. v. Apple Computer, Inc., et ul.,
CHA. No. 04-1338-KAJ
Dear Judge Jordan:
On behalf of Samsung SDI Co., Ltd. and Samsung SDI America, Inc. (collectively,
“Samsung SDI"), l write to respond to Honeywell’s letter to the court regarding discovery.
Samsung SDI respectfully requests that the Court decline to order immediate production of
documents and supplementation of interrogatory responses. Such an order would be unnecessary
because Samsung SDI is preparing to serve supplemental interrogatory responses and an initial
document production on Honeywell by September l9. Samsung SDI hopes to complete its
document production by the end of October.
Despite repeated requests from Samsung SDI, Honeywell and Samsung SDl have not met
and conferred to discuss this timetable. Instead, Honeywell has made unreasonable demands for
supplementation. ln a letter dated July 25, which did not differ substantially from the letter to
Casio attached to I—loneywell’s September 7 letter to the Court, Honeywell unilaterally decided
that all supplementation should be completed by August 24. On August 18, Samsung SDl sent a
letter to Honeywell offering to supplement its responses by October 16. When Honeywell
complained that October 16 was too late, Samsung SDI promised to attempt to supplement its
responses earlier and offered to meet and confer. On August 25, Honeywell indicated that it
planned to move to compel immediate responses. Since that date, Samsung SDI has been able to
gather sufficient information to supplement its discovery responses by September 19.
Honeywell’s complaint that these supplemental responses should have been served
months ago is unrealistic. As discussed during the previous discovery teleconference,
Honeywell’s original document requests sought to force the defendants to identify “‘Accused
Structures" based on a definition crafted by Honeywell, to which Samstmg SDI objected. The
scope of I—loneywell’s discovery requests was almost entirely based on the definition of that term.
It was not until July 21 that the defendants obtained relief from the Court forcing Honeywell
itself to identify the Accused Structures. Further, in its July 25 letter to Samsung SDI,
Honeywell indicated that it would supplement its answer with any additional infringing modules.
Prior to obtaining that potential supplemental identilication, it was premature for Samsung SDI
to search its multiple facilities for documents responsive to I—Ioneyweli’s document requests.

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF Document 558 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 2 of 2
The Ilonorable Kent A. Jordan
September 13, 2006
Page 2
ln light of the above, Samsung SD} respectfully requests that the Court deny as
unnecessary I-Ior1eywell’s demand for immediate production of all documents and immediate
supplementation of interrogatory responses.
Respectfully,
/.9/ Ric/wczrci L. Horwitz
Richard L. Horwitz
/1s0a0r
cc: Clerk of the Court (via lazmd delivery)
Counsel of Record (vin electronic mail)