Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF Document 554 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 1 of 3
Potter
Q AUCl01‘S01‘l Richard 1... Hurwitz
LaC(}l"1`OOl] LLP Qjgtts
omey at Law
1.313 North Market Street rhorwitz@pot·terandcrson com
P O Box 951 302 984-6027 Direct Phone
Wilmington, DE 19899-0951 302 658-l 192 fax
302 984-6000
\\'\\¤'\\'.f`1{}“E!'5lIll1€I'Sl)lIiC01'I'I
September l3, 2006
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
United States District Court for the District ofDelaware
844 King Street, Locltbox 10
Wilmington, Delaware 1980l
Re: Honeywell Irzt’l, Inc. et al. v. Apple Computer, Inc. et al,.
C.A. N0. 04-1338-KAJ _ ___
Dear Judge Jordan:
We write to the Court on behalf of defendant Hitachi Displays, Ltd. ("Hitachi") in
response to the Honeywell plaintiffs’ letter to the Court of September 7, .2006. D.I. 549.
Honeywell fails to identify for the Court the precise nature of Honeywell’s complaints as against
Hitachi or, for that matter, any other defendant. Rather, Honeywell alleges the existence of three
broad discovery disputes with regard to "a majority of defendants” and seeks unspecified reliefl
Id , p. 1. Hitachi respectfully submits that Honeywell’s amorphous request for judicial
intervention, including, most egregiously, its failure to identify the defendants against whom
relief is sought, is inappropriate. To the extent Honeywell’s complaints are directed at Hitachi,
Hitachi disagrees that any legitimate discovery issue exists.
Hitachi has proceeded in good faith throughout the discovery process, and in particular
during the recent time period to which Honeywell’s complaints are directed. Until receiving a
letter from Honeywell that was sent to all defendants on August 25 advising that Honeywell had
already contacted the Court seeking a hearing, Hitachi had no idea that any dispute existed, much
less one that required Court intervention. Indeed, as ofthe writing of this response letter, Hitachi
still does not know what Honeywell is seeking from Hitachi despite several unambiguous
requests that went unanswered. See 09/05/06 Letter from Sirota to Woods ("[P]lease advise
whether Honeywell intends to bring a motion as against Hitachi and, if so, what relief Honeywell
intends to seek."), Ex- A; 09/08/06 Letter from Sirota to McKenna (“Please advise what relief
Honeywell is seeking specifically with respect to Hitachi.") (emphasis in original), Ex. B.
The Ho1iey;_yyell—Hitacl1i "Meet and Confer" Process
A review of the recent correspondence between Honeywell and Hitachi demonstrates
Hitachi’s good faith and highlights I~loneywell’s conscious rehisal to deal with Hitachi on an
individual basis. Although addressing the individual circumstances of each defendant
undoubtedly takes some effort, Honeywell, not the defendants, chose to proceed with a multiple
party suit. Honeywell should not be permitted to now use the number of defendants as an excuse
to bypass the party~specitic ‘“1neet and confer" process by which Honeywell is obligated to
attempt to resolve or narrow disputes before seeking Court intervention.
On luly 25, Hitachi received its form letter from Honeywell seeking an exchange of
supplemental interrogatory responses. Ex. C. Due to vacations and holiday ciosures in the
months of August and September, Hitachi proposed an exchange on September 22, 2006.

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF Document 554 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 2 of 3
The Honorable Kent A. Jordan
September 13, 2006
Page 2
08/ l 1/06 Email, Ex. D.. A teleconference between counsel followed on August 22, 2006 wherein
Honeywell inquired about the status of Hitachi’s supplemental interrogatory responses and
document production. Hitachi again committed to providing its supplemental interrogatory
responses on September 22 and advised Honeywell that Hitachi’s document production would
begin within the next couple of weeks and would continue thereafter on a rolling basis until
complete. Although Honeywell was seeking a quicker turnaround for the interrogatory
responses, no dissatisfaction with Hitachi’s proposed document production was expressed, and a
need for Court intervention was never discussed. At that time, Honeywell had itself not yet
produced any documents.
On August IS, Hitachi received six boxes of documents from Honeywell. One week
later, on August 25, Honeywell sent another one—size—fits—all letter to all defendants advising that
Honeywell had already contacted the Court for a hearing date due to the alleged discovery
failures of "the majority of defendants? Ex. E. In view of its prior discussions and
correspondence with Honeywell, Hitachi assumed that it was not one of “the majority of
defendants" against whom relief was being sought.
On August 29, the undersigned sent a letter on behalf of all defendants seeking
clarification from Honeywell regarding the disputes and parties against whom Honeywell was
seeking relief. Ex. F. In a responsive letter, Honeywell made numerous demands of defendants,
but the identity ofthe “ma_iority of defer1dants" being targeted by Honeywell was not disclosed.
Ex. G.
Hitachi separately wrote to Honeywell on September 5 to ensure no misunderstanding
regarding Hitachi’s position. Ex. A. Hitachi committed to commence its rolling document
production with approximately 20,000 pages on or before September 8 and reiterated its
commitment to provide supplemental interrogatory responses on or before September 22.
Hitachi concluded the letter by inquiring "whether Honeywell intends to bring a motion as
against Hitachi, and, if so, what relief Honeywell intends to seek.’° Int , p. 2..
The parties spoke on September 6, and an exchange of letters followed. In a letter dated
September 6, Honeywell expressed disappointment that Hitachi was not moving more quickly,
but made no threat to seek relief from the Court as against Hitachi. Ex. H. On September 7,
Honeywell filed its letter with the Court which did not identify either the allegedly uncooperative
parties or the specific relief requested.
Hitachi sent a letter on September 8 to clarify its position on several matters set forth in
Honeywell’s letter of September 6. Ex. B. Additionally, having still not received any
representation that Hitachi was not one of the “1najority of defendants" against whom Honeywell
was seeking relief, Hitachi concluded the September 8 letter with a request to “advise |Hitachil
no later than 5 p.m. today whether Honeywelfs motion is directed to Hitachi. and. if so. what
relief Honeyyyell is seeking specifically with respect to Hitachi? fd., p.. 2 (emphasis in original).
Honeywell responded that its motion was "directed to several defendants, including
Hitachi," but, again, Honeywell refused to tell Hitachi what relief Honeywell is seeking. Ex. I.

Case 1:04-cv-01338-JJF Document 554 Filed 09/13/2006 Page 3 of 3
The Honorable Kent Ar Jordan
September 13, 2006
Page 3
l-Ioneywell’s issues vis—a—vis Hitachi
In its letter to the Court, Honeywell broadly identifies three issues: (1) document
production; (2) contention interrogatory supplementation; and (3) production of documents and
information regarding “other versions" of modules accused by Honeywell.
As Honeywell is well aware, prior to Honeywell filing its letter: (1) Hitachi committed to
begin its production of documents with a 20,000 page production last week, with l—Iitachi’s
rolling production expected to conclude in Novernbergl (2) Hitachi agreed to serve its
supplemental interrogatory responses on or before September 2.2; and (3) in an effort to avoid
any future disputes over whether Hitachi has produced documents and information relating to the
full scope of “accused structures,”’ Hitachi advised Honeywell that its document production will
include an identification of, and technical specifications for, all srnall~ or medium—sized modules
that could possibly be considered relevant here without regard to a “generational” or ‘“version"
formulation. See Exs. A and B.
The only issue identified by Honeywell in its September 7 letter to the Court that could
reasonably be read as applying to Hitachi is Honeywell’s concern that the conclusion of
document production in November or December will somehow prejudice Honeywell. However,
in its August 29 letter to the defendants, Honeywell acknowledged that it had reserved time for
depositions in the Japanese embassy in early January 2007 and for three weelrs in March 2007.
Ex. G, p- 2 n. 2.. Due to holiday closures and other commitments, the January 2007 dates will not
be possible for Hitachi, leaving March 2007 as the likely time for the Hitachi depositions.
Therefore, Honeywell will have three to four months of review and translation time from the
expected conclusion ofthe document production which does not even take into account the
additional months Honeywell will have to analyze the rolling document production that is
currently underway. Put into proper context, Honeywell’s complaints of undue and prejudicial
delay are therefore without rnerit. This is particularly true because the large volume of
documents Hitachi is producing is the direct result of Honeywell’s failure to properly identify the
scope of accused products,
ln view of the foregoing, Hitachi respectfully requests denial of l-loneywell’s request for
relief (whatever that request may be) to the extent it relates to Hitachi.
Respectfully,
/.r/ Richard L. Horwitz
Richard L. Horwitz
massa
cc: Clerk of the Court (via hand delivery)
Counsel of Record (via electronic mail)
1 On September 8, Hitachi produced more than 29,000 pages of documents including detailed
technical specitications for the modules Honeywell specifically identilied as an "accused
structure?