Case 1:14-cv-01430-LPS Document 462 Filed 01/27/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 27111
`
`
`
`January 27, 2022
`
`VIA E-FILING
`The Honorable Jennifer L. Hall
`U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
`844 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`
`
`Re: Elm 3DS Innovations LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., et al.
`C.A. No. 14-cv-1430-LPS
`
`Dear Judge Hall,
`Samsung’s request for clarification is procedurally improper and should be denied. Samsung
`filed its request without the requisite meet and confer with Elm, in violation of Local Rule 7.1.1.
`Samsung did not even inform Elm that it thought the Court’s Order needed clarification, let alone
`make any effort to reach agreement with Elm before filing its letter, as required by Rule 7.1.1.
`Samsung’s request for clarification also violates the Scheduling Order’s mandate that, except
`for certain circumstances not applicable here, “any application to the Court shall be by written
`motion filed with the Clerk.” D.I. 111 at 16, ¶ 20. Samsung’s letter is not presented as a motion and
`does not comply with the requirements for filing a motion under Local Rule 7.1.2.
`Samsung’s letter also runs afoul of Local Rule 7.1.5, which prohibits “[m]otions for
`reargument on a ruling made by a Magistrate Judge pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.” The Local Rules
`mandate this finality for good reason. A crucial deadline is fast approaching. In the next few weeks,
`Samsung is required to “substantially complete discovery on representative products, including
`document production, production of samples, and interrogatory supplementation.” D.I. 445 at 2. In
`contrast to the at-best ancillary significance of Mr. Epstein’s compensation, the information
`Samsung is due to provide on February 18 is central to Elm’s infringement and damages claims. Elm
`has waited years to receive this data. Instead of focusing its energy on ensuring that it meets this
`deadline, Samsung continues to waste time seeking to revisit an issue Elm and this Court have
`already fully addressed.
`The Court’s Oral Order was clear. The only relief the Court granted Samsung was the
`production of the portions of the term sheet that Elm offered to produce. The Court did not grant
`any other of Samsung’s requests. No clarification is necessary.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brian E. Farnan
`
`Brian E. Farnan
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cc: Counsel of Record (Via E-File)
`
`9 1 9 N . M A R K E T S T R E E T , 1 2 T H F L O O R , W I L M I N G T O N , D E 1 9 8 0 1
`P H O N E : ( 3 0 2 ) 7 7 7 – 0 3 0 0 · F A X : ( 3 0 2 ) 7 7 7 – 0 3 0 1 · W W W . F A R N A N L A W . C O M
`
`