Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525 Filed 06/14/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 28752
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525 Filed 06/14/22 Page 1 of 5 PagelD #: 28752
`
`IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`C.A. No. 14-1430-CJB
`
`REDACTED VERSION
`REDACTED VERSION
`
`ELM 3DS INNOVATIONS,LLC, a
`Delaware limited liability company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CoO., LTD.,
`SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR,INC.,
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC., and SAMSUNG AUSTIN
`SEMICONDUCTOR,LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`eeOOSS”
`
`DEFENDANT SAMSUNG’S RESPONSIVE DISCOVERY DISPUTE LETTER
`
`Dated: June 3, 2022
`
`YOUNG CONAWAYSTARGATT &
`TAYLOR, LLP
`Adam W.Poff (No. 3990)
`Pilar G. Kraman (No. 5199)
`Rodney Square
`1000 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 571-6600
`apoff@ycst.com
`pkraman@ycst.com
`
`Attorneysfor Defendants Samsung Electronics
`Co., Ltd., Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.,
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`Samsung Austin Semiconductor, LLC
`
`28987958.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525 Filed 06/14/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 28753
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525 Filed 06/14/22 Page 2 of 5 PagelD #: 28753
`
`Dear Judge Burke,
`
`Samsung respectfully asks this Court to deny Elm’s requests in its May 27, 2022letter.
`As Elm’sletter admits, during the parties’ meet and confers, Samsung agreed to investigate and
`produce further documents responsive to Elm’s requests. While Samsung did so in goodfaith,
`Elm inexplicably pressed forward withits letter without an impasse,! and advanced new issues
`never before raised with Samsung.” Nevertheless, Samsung’s earlier productions, along with the
`documents it has now produced, have ample information mooting Elm’s requests. To the extent
`Elm has further concerns, Samsung can address them without burdening the Court.
`
`I.
`
`There Is No Dispute Over The Production Of Warpage Data
`
`Elm opens by emphasizing the importance ofdielectric stress in this case, and incorrectly
`suggests that Samsung has taken inconsistent positions on the production of such information.
`
`D.I. 518 at 1.
`
`
`
`
`Such stress, however, 1s oflittle relevance to any
`
`dielectric stress in a final product—whichhas led Elm to pursue other types of data (e.g.,
`warpage), to calculate dielectric stress in the products that Samsung ultimately sells.
`
`There is likewise no dispute over the production of warpage data for the Court to address.
`Elm incorrectly contends that Samsung has “refused” to produce warpagedata (D.I. 518 at 1);
`Samsung merely questioned whetherit is reasonable (and proportionalto the needs of the case)
`to produce “all the warpage data associated with the accused products,” as Elm requested. Jd.;
`Ex. 8 at 4. And, Elm hasfailed to justify the need to produce such an enormous volume of data
`acrossall products. In any event, as Elm concedes, the parties are “negotiating what additional
`warpage data Samsung will produce,” and there is no dispute for the Court to resolve. Jd.
`
`Il.
`
`Information on “How” Samsung Measures Warpage Has Been Produced
`
`Elm incorrectly contends that Samsunghasfailed to produce documents showing “how”
`warpage measurements are taken, overlooking or misapprehending the data and documents that
`
`' This has been an unfortunate pattern. See DI. 255, n.1 (“Elm inex licably proceededwith its
`motion to compelthis data, despite there clearly being no dispute”);
`D.I. 473, n. 3 (“the issues
`addressed herein were communicated to Samsungfor the first tume in Elm’s openingletter”).
`? Parties are expected to reasonably work on issues, rather than prematurely approach the Court.
`AgroFreshInc. v. Hazel Technologies, Inc., No. 1-18-cv-01486 (D. Del. Mar. , 2020) (“before
`any future discovery dispute is brought. .
`. [counsel] .
`.
`. must engage in reasonable efforts to
`resolve the issue in dispute or confirm they are at an impasse”); Nordetek Environmental, Inc. v.
`RDP Technologies, Inc., No. 09-4714, slip op. at 6 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 28, 2011) (denying motion to
`aces
`compel, finding plaintiffs
`“‘inexplicable rush to the Courthouse’ .
`.
`. inexcusable”). Exs. F-G.
`
`ec
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525 Filed 06/14/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 28754
`
`have been produced. Samsunghas produced ample responsive information.’ If any legitimate
`concerns remain, Samsung remains willing to work with Elmto address them.
`
`First, Elm complains tha
`
`Second, Elmreframes the issue presented in its request for a discovery
`
`moving away
`
`teleconference,
`
`D.I. 518 at 2.
`
`The reason for Elm’s maneuver1s clear:
`
`fromits demand
`
`Ex. C at 2.
`
`Third, Elmraises entirely new questionsee. which
`were raisedfor thefirst time after Elm’s request for a discovery teleconference. Regardless,
`
`
`Samsung againdiligently investigated these issues, and produced documents that address Elm’s
`newfound questions. See Ex. A at 11
`
`
`
`. Further
`
`
`questions can be addressed by conferring or deposition, as needed.
`
`Il.
`
`Information on “When” Samsung Measures Warpage Does Not Exist
`
`Elmincorrectly suggests that Samsung has failed to maintain warpage data. As Samsun
`
`has repeatedly explained,
`
`
`
`* Indeed, Samsung produced over 900,000 pages of documents responsive to Elm’s requests.
`° Elmhasalso previously and unnecessarily raised to the Court similaralleged deficiencies about
`units and other data that were readily ascertainable from Samsung’s documents. D-I. 473 at 2-3.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525 Filed 06/14/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 28755
`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525 Filed 06/14/22 Page 4 of 5 PagelD #: 28755
`
` And, any further questions can be addressed by deposition, as needed.
`
`Elm hasnobasis, other than speculation, to infer that Samsung’s representations are not
`trustworthy.* Discovery cannot, of course, be based on speculation. Jnvesas Corp. v. Renesas
`Elecs. Corp., 287 F.R.D. 273, 279 (D. Del. 2012) (““‘[R]equested informationis not relevant. .
`if the inquiry is based on the party’s mere suspicion or speculation.’”) (citation omitted)
`(emphasis added). Without a legitimate basis for this discovery, Elm’s request should be denied.
`
`.
`
`IV.
`
`Document Retention Policies Are Not Discoverable
`
`Samsung agreed to produce any non-privileged retention policiesit finds,
`
`
`impermissible. Courts
`for “comprehensive”retention policies is unwarranted and
`Elm’s request
`in this district have denied motions to compel such documents under the default discovery order:
`
`
`
`The Default Discovery Standard reads: “Activities undertaken in compliance with
`the duty to preserve information are protected from disclosure and discovery under
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A) and (B).” Default Discovery Standard at 1(d)(ii1). The
`courtfinds that document retention and destructionpolicies fit squarely within
`the meaning ofthe “duty to preserve information.” Id. Accordingly, such
`documents are privileged under the Default Discovery Standard.
`
`Novanta Corp. v. Iradion Laser, Inc., No. 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126042, *9 (D. Del. Sept. 16,
`2016) (emphasis added). Elm’s request should be denied onthis basis alone. But even if
`Samsung’s policies were notprivileged, they are not “relevant to any party’s claim or defense”
`under Rule 26, and thus not discoverable. See Tessera, Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., 2017 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 178929, *7-8 (D. Del. Oct. 24, 2017) (“[T]he question is whether Tessera has made a
`sufficient record to demonstrate relevance—that is, whether Tessera has demonstrated, beyond
`citing to mere ‘suspicionor speculation],]’ that the discoverywillflesh outfacts regarding an
`infringementissue that is necessarily in the case.”) (citation omitted) (emphasis added).
`
`These requests amountto a fishing expedition in support of a baseless theory that
`Samsunghasfailed to preserve evidence. The requested documents bearno relation to Elm’s
`infringement theories, and Elm has no valid purpose for them otherthan to try to gain a strategic
`advantage over Samsung. Elm’s request for retention policies should therefore be denied.
`
`8 Elm tries to justify its demand by claimingthat“less than 2%”of “five million memo
`
`ave warpage measurements, in another issue raised forthe first time before the Court.
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-01430-CJB Document 525 Filed 06/14/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 28756
`
`Respectfully,
`
`/s/ Adam W. Poff (No. 3990)
`
`cc: All Counsel of Record (Via email)
`
`29427767.1
`
`
`
`