Free Memorandum Opinion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:O8—mc—O0O63-JJF Document 10 Filed O4/29/2008 Page 1 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
DIGACOMM, LLC, :
Plaintiff, E
v. E C.A. No. O8~MC—63 JJF
VEHICLE SAFETY & COMPLIANCE, E
LLC, et al., :
Defendants. E
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
Plaintiff, by its present petition (D.I. 1), seeks to
enforce a subpoena to the Fish & Richardson law firm. Fish and
Richardson contends it has reasonably complied with the subpoena,
but Plaintiff asserts that Fish & Richardson ignored the
subpoena. Of interest to the Court, Plaintiff’s counsel asserts
that “[t]he facts presented in Fish’s response brief differ from
the facts it relayed to DigaComm.” (Reply Brief at 2, D.I. 9.)
After making this assertion, a detailed factual pattern is set
out which Plaintiff contends demonstrates that “Fish has failed
to establish good cause for its neglect."
In the Court’s experience, lawyering in fast paced, high
stakes litigation can sometimes wander from the professional
standards expected.l Plaintiff’s counsel has made it clear this
is a case with high stakes for its client and the lawyers
1The Court notes that Plaintiff’s counsel has repeatedly
cited the “rocket docket" schedule of the underlying case.

Case1:O8-mc—0OO63-JJF D0cument10 Filed O4/29/2008 Page20f2
involved in this dispute:
DigaComm's underlying claims for fraud, tortious
interference with contract, and unjust enrichment center
around a deal that DigaComm facilitated between a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Defendant VSAC, Vehicle IP, LLC (“VIP”),
and General Electric (“GE”). In exchange for DigaComm's
efforts, VIP promised to compensate DigaComm with a
percentage of the GE deal. During the negotiation of the GE
deal, VIP consistently represented that its patent portfolio
was worth $4 billion. In addition to detailed documents
laying out it valuation analysis, VIP used Fish's
willingness to litigate the patents on a contingency to lend
credibility to its valuation analysis. (Reply Brief at 5,
11.1. 9.)
In order to resolve the legal issues presented by the
petition and the professional issues presented by the briefing,
the Court will conduct an evidentiary hearing. At the hearing,
the Court will require the appearances of James E. O'Neill
(Pachuski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP), Stephen C. Hackney and
Matthew E. Nirider (Kirkland & Ellis LLP), Cathy L. Reese and
John Steele (Fish & Richardson P.C.).
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. An evidentiary hearing will be held on Wednesday, May
7, 2008 at 1:00 p.m. If the subpoena issues are fully
resolved, the hearing must still go forward to resolve
the professional issues;
2. All of the above—mentioned attorneys shall appear.
April gi, 2008 vw/6`(J·4»»~.
UN D AT DISTRICT D E
2

Case 1:08-mc-00063-JJF

Document 10

Filed 04/29/2008

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:08-mc-00063-JJF

Document 10

Filed 04/29/2008

Page 2 of 2