Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 33 PageID #: 798
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 1 of 33 PageID #: 798
`
`EXHIBIT A
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 2 of 33 PageID #: 799
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-00290-SLR
`
`v.
`
`OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`PLAINTIFF’S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS RELATING TO VENUE
`
`Pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure and the parties’ Stipulation
`
`and Order for Extension of Time and Venue Discovery (D.I. 16), Defendant OmniVision
`
`Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant” or “OmniVision”), by and through its undersigned counsel,
`
`hereby responds to Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1’s (“Plaintiff” or “IP Bridge”) First Set of
`
`Request For Admissions Relating to Venue as follows:
`
`GENERAL OBJECTIONS
`
`OmniVision makes the following objections, whether or not separately set forth in any
`
`specific response to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For Admissions Relating to Venue, to each
`
`and every Instruction, Definition, and Request:
`
`1.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Instruction, Definition and Request as unduly
`
`burdensome and oppressive to the extent that it purports to require OmniVision to search
`
`OmniVision’s facilities and inquire of OmniVision’s employees other than those facilities and
`
`employees that would reasonably be expected to have responsive information. OmniVision’s
`
`responses are based upon: (1) a reasonable search, given the time allocated to OmniVision to
`
`respond to the Requests; and (2) inquiries of OmniVision’s employees and/or representatives
`
`who could reasonably be expected to possess responsive information.
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR
`ADMISSIONS RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 3 of 33 PageID #: 800
`
`2.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Instruction, Definition and Request to the extent
`
`that it purports to impose any requirement or discovery obligation on OmniVision other than
`
`those set forth in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the applicable rules and orders of this
`
`Court, and stipulations among the parties to this litigation.
`
`3.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Instruction, Definition and Request to the extent it
`
`seeks information and/or documents protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege,
`
`the work product doctrine, the common interest doctrine, or any other applicable privilege or
`
`immunity. Such information and/or documents shall not be provided in response to any
`
`Request and any inadvertent disclosure or production thereof shall not be deemed a waiver of
`
`any privilege with respect to such information and/or documents, or of any work product
`
`protection, which may attach thereto.
`
`4.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Instruction, Definition and Request to the extent it
`
`seeks information and/or documents concerning, and the disclosure of, proprietary and highly
`
`confidential information and/or trade secrets.
`
`If and to the extent OmniVision agrees to
`
`provide any information or documents, it will do so only subject to the protections of an
`
`appropriate protective order and/or a mutually acceptable supplemental protective order to
`
`address OmniVision’s confidentiality concerns.
`
`5.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Instruction, Definition and Request to the extent
`
`that it purports to require OmniVision to produce or disclose information in violation of a legal
`
`or contractual obligation of nondisclosure to a third party. OmniVision will not produce such
`
`documents without either the consent of the relevant third party or an order by this Court
`
`compelling disclosure or production.
`
`6.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Instruction, Definition, and Request to the extent it
`
`is overly broad, unduly burdensome, seeks information that is not reasonably calculated to lead
`
`to the discovery of admissible evidence, or seeks information that is not related to any claim or
`
`defense or the subject matter involved in this action.
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR
`ADMISSIONS RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 4 of 33 PageID #: 801
`
`7.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Request to the extent it seeks information that is not
`
`known to OmniVision and is outside OmniVision’s possession, custody and control.
`
`8.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Request to the extent that it seeks information that
`
`is available from public sources, more conveniently or less expensively obtained from another
`
`source, or otherwise just as available to Plaintiff as it is to OmniVision.
`
`9.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Instruction, Definition, and Request to the extent it
`
`seeks information from sources that are not reasonably accessible.
`
`10.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Request as premature to the extent it calls for
`
`information in advance of the applicable deadlines set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`
`the Court, any applicable local rules or agreed to by the parties in this action.
`
`11.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Request to the extent it calls for information that
`
`can be derived or ascertained from records OmniVision has produced or will produce in this
`
`action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34.
`
`12.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Instruction, Definition and Request to the extent it
`
`calls for a legal conclusion.
`
`13.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Instruction, Definition and Request to the extent it
`
`calls for information more properly the subject of expert testimony.
`
`14.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Request as vague, overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome to the extent that it fails to specify a relevant time period, or specify a time period
`
`beyond the scope of this litigation.
`
`15.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Request as vague, overly broad and unduly
`
`burdensome to the extent that it fails to specify a relevant geographic scope, seeks information
`
`relating to activity outside the United States, or otherwise specifies a location beyond the
`
`geographic scope of this litigation.
`
`16.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Request to the extent it assumes a disputed fact or
`
`legal conclusion in defining the information requested. OmniVision denies any such disputed
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR
`ADMISSIONS RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 5 of 33 PageID #: 802
`
`facts or legal conclusions assumed by each Request, and any response or objection to any
`
`Request is without prejudice to this objection.
`
`17.
`
`OmniVision objects to each Request as unreasonably cumulative or duplicative
`
`to the extent that it seeks the same information as other discovery requests in this litigation,
`
`including but not limited to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For Production Relating to Venue
`
`and Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Relating to Venue.
`
`18.
`
`OmniVision objects to the definition of “Defendant,” “OmniVision,” “you,” and
`
`“your” as overly broad and unduly burdensome. Unless called out separately, OmniVision will
`
`understand the terms “Defendant,” “OmniVision,” “you,” and “your” to refer to OmniVision
`
`Technologies, Inc.
`
`19.
`
`OmniVision objects to terms “Accused Product” and “Accused Products” as
`
`vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome. OmniVision will understand the
`
`terms “Accused Product” and “Accused Products” to refer to those OmniVision image sensors
`
`identified in Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`
`20.
`
`OmniVision objects to the terms “communication” and “communications” as
`
`vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome.
`
`21.
`
`OmniVision objects to the terms “document” and “documents” as vague,
`
`ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome.
`
`22.
`
`OmniVision objects to the term “electronically stored information” as vague,
`
`ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome.
`
`23.
`
`OmniVision objects to the terms “Affiliate” and “Affiliates” as vague,
`
`ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome.
`
`24.
`
`OmniVision objects to the terms “employee” and “employees” as vague,
`
`ambiguous, overly broad, and unduly burdensome.
`
`25.
`
`OmniVision objects to the terms “person” and “persons” as vague, ambiguous,
`
`overly broad, and unduly burdensome.
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR
`ADMISSIONS RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 6 of 33 PageID #: 803
`
`26.
`
`OmniVision objects to the term “file” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad, and
`
`unduly burdensome.
`
`27.
`
`OmniVision objects to the term “identify” as vague, ambiguous, overly broad,
`
`and unduly burdensome.
`
`28.
`
`OmniVision’s responses to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For Admissions
`
`Relating to Venue are made to the best of OmniVision’s present knowledge, information, and
`
`belief, are based upon OmniVision’s best understanding of each Request, and are based on
`
`information currently in OmniVision’s possession, custody, and control.
`
`29.
`
`The subject matter of each Request
`
`is under continuing investigation.
`
`OmniVision will respond to each Request with current knowledge and reserves the right to
`
`supplement these responses if any additional information is identified at a later time and to
`
`make any additional objections that may become apparent.
`
`30.
`
`OmniVision also reserves the right to make use, or introduce at any hearing or at
`
`trial, any documents or information not known of or thought to be responsive at the time of
`
`response.
`
`31.
`
`OmniVision assumes no obligation beyond that imposed by the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure and in the rules and orders of this Court to voluntarily supplement or amend
`
`these responses to reflect witnesses, facts, contentions, information or evidence discovered
`
`following service of these responses.
`
`RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS RELATING TO VENUE
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
`
`Admit that Defendant has maintained one or more addresses in the State of Delaware in
`
`the last ten years.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 1:
`
`In addition to its general objections, OmniVision objects that this Request is overly broad
`
`and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is not related to any claim or
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR
`ADMISSIONS RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 7 of 33 PageID #: 804
`
`defense in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. In particular, OmniVision objects that this Request is overly broad to the extent that it
`
`fails to specify a relevant time period. OmniVision further objects to this Request as vague and
`
`ambiguous as to the phrase “maintained one or more addresses.” OmniVision further objects to
`
`this Request to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege, the
`
`attorney client work product doctrine, joint defense or common interest privilege, and/or any
`
`other applicable privilege or immunity. OmniVision further objects to this Request to the extent
`
`that it seeks publicly available information that is equally available to IP Bridge. OmniVision
`
`further objects to this Request as unreasonably cumulative or duplicative to the extent that it
`
`seeks the same information as other discovery requests in this litigation, including but not limited
`
`to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For Production Relating to Venue and Plaintiff’s First Set of
`
`Interrogatories to Defendant Relating to Venue.
`
`Subject
`
`to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections,
`
`OmniVision responds as follows: Denied.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:
`
`Admit that one or more of Defendant’s agents have maintained one or more addresses in
`
`the State of Delaware in the last ten years.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 2:
`
`In addition to its general objections, OmniVision objects that this Request is overly broad
`
`and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is not related to any claim or
`
`defense in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. In particular, OmniVision objects that this Request is overly broad to the extent that it
`
`fails to specify a relevant time period. OmniVision further objects to this Request as vague and
`
`ambiguous as to the phrase “maintained one or more addresses.” OmniVision further objects to
`
`this Request to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege, the
`
`attorney client work product doctrine, joint defense or common interest privilege, and/or any
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR
`ADMISSIONS RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 8 of 33 PageID #: 805
`
`other applicable privilege or immunity. OmniVision further objects to this Request to the extent
`
`that it seeks publicly available information that is equally available to IP Bridge. OmniVision
`
`further objects to this Request
`
`to the extent
`
`that
`
`it seeks information that
`
`is outside of
`
`OmniVision’s possession, custody, or control. OmniVision further objects to this Request to the
`
`extent that it seeks confidential information of a third party. OmniVision further objects to this
`
`Request as unreasonably cumulative or duplicative to the extent
`
`that
`
`it seeks the same
`
`information as other discovery requests in this litigation, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s
`
`First Set of Request For Production Relating to Venue and Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories
`
`to Defendant Relating to Venue.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and to the
`
`extent OmniVision understands this Request, OmniVision responds as follows: Admitted.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:
`
`Admit that Defendant has entered into one or more contracts or agreements in the last ten
`
`years that selects Delaware as governing law.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 3:
`
`In addition to its general objections, OmniVision objects that this Request is overly broad
`
`and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is not related to any claim or
`
`defense in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information
`
`protected by the attorney client privilege, the attorney client work product doctrine, joint defense
`
`or common interest privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. Defendant also
`
`objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to the phrase “selects Delaware as governing
`
`law.”
`
`In addition, Defendant objects to this Request to the extent that it calls for a legal
`
`conclusion. Defendant further objects to this Request to the extent it seeks information the
`
`disclosure of which is subject to third-party confidentiality obligations or a protective order.
`
`OmniVision further objects to this Request as unreasonably cumulative or duplicative to the
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR
`ADMISSIONS RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 9 of 33 PageID #: 806
`
`extent that it seeks the same information as other discovery requests in this litigation, including
`
`but not limited to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For Production Relating to Venue and
`
`Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Relating to Venue.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and to the
`
`extent OmniVision understands this Request, OmniVision responds as follows: Admitted.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:
`
`Admit that Defendant has entered into one or more contracts or agreements in the last ten
`
`years that selects Delaware as jurisdiction for disputes.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 4:
`
`In addition to its general objections, OmniVision objects that this Request is overly broad
`
`and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is not related to any claim or
`
`defense in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. In particular, OmniVision objects that this Request is overly broad to the extent that it
`
`fails to specify a relevant time period. OmniVision further objects to this Request to the extent
`
`that it seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege, the attorney client work
`
`product doctrine,
`
`joint defense or common interest privilege, and/or any other applicable
`
`privilege or immunity. OmniVision further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks
`
`confidential
`
`information of a third party. OmniVision further objects to this Request as
`
`unreasonably cumulative or duplicative to the extent that it seeks the same information as other
`
`discovery requests in this litigation, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request
`
`For Production Relating to Venue and Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant
`
`Relating to Venue.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and to the
`
`extent OmniVision understands this Request, OmniVision responds as follows: OmniVision is
`
`currently unaware of having entered into one or more agreements that select Delaware as
`
`jurisdiction for disputes and, on that basis, denies this Request.
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR
`ADMISSIONS RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 10 of 33 PageID #: 807
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:
`
`Admit that Defendant has entered into one or more contracts or agreements in the last ten
`
`years that selects Delaware as venue for disputes.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 5:
`
`In addition to its general objections, OmniVision objects that this Request is overly broad
`
`and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is not related to any claim or
`
`defense in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. In particular, OmniVision objects that this Request is overly broad to the extent that it
`
`fails to specify a relevant time period. OmniVision further objects to this Request to the extent
`
`that it seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege, the attorney client work
`
`product doctrine,
`
`joint defense or common interest privilege, and/or any other applicable
`
`privilege or immunity. OmniVision further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks
`
`confidential
`
`information of a third party. OmniVision further objects to this Request as
`
`unreasonably cumulative or duplicative to the extent that it seeks the same information as other
`
`discovery requests in this litigation, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request
`
`For Production Relating to Venue and Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant
`
`Relating to Venue.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and to the
`
`extent OmniVision understands this Request, OmniVision responds as follows: OmniVision is
`
`currently unaware of having entered into one or more agreements that select Delaware as venue
`
`for disputes and, on that basis, denies this Request.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6:
`
`Admit that Defendant has entered into one or more contracts or agreements in the last ten
`
`years that selects arbitration in Delaware for disputes.
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR
`ADMISSIONS RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 11 of 33 PageID #: 808
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 6:
`
`In addition to its general objections, OmniVision objects that this Request is overly broad
`
`and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is not related to any claim or
`
`defense in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. In particular, OmniVision objects that this Request is overly broad to the extent that it
`
`fails to specify a relevant time period. OmniVision further objects to this Request to the extent
`
`that it seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege, the attorney client work
`
`product doctrine,
`
`joint defense or common interest privilege, and/or any other applicable
`
`privilege or immunity. OmniVision further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks
`
`confidential
`
`information of a third party. OmniVision further objects to this Request as
`
`unreasonably cumulative or duplicative to the extent that it seeks the same information as other
`
`discovery requests in this litigation, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request
`
`For Production Relating to Venue and Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant
`
`Relating to Venue.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and to the
`
`extent OmniVision understands this Request, OmniVision responds as follows: Denied.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7:
`
`Admit that Defendant is incorporated in the State of Delaware.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 7:
`
`In addition to its general objections, OmniVision objects that this Request is overly broad
`
`and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is not related to any claim or
`
`defense in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. OmniVision further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks information
`
`protected by the attorney client privilege, the attorney client work product doctrine, joint defense
`
`or common interest privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege or immunity. OmniVision
`
`further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks publicly available information that is
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR
`ADMISSIONS RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 12 of 33 PageID #: 809
`
`equally available to IP Bridge. OmniVision further objects to this Request as unreasonably
`
`cumulative or duplicative to the extent that it seeks the same information as other discovery
`
`requests in this litigation, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For
`
`Production Relating to Venue and Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Relating to
`
`Venue.
`
`Subject to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections, and to the
`
`extent OmniVision understands this Request, OmniVision responds as follows: Admitted.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8:
`
`Admit that Defendant was aware of benefits of incorporating in Delaware when it
`
`incorporated there.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 8:
`
`In addition to its general objections, OmniVision objects that this Request is overly broad
`
`and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is not related to any claim or
`
`defense in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. OmniVision further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to the phrase
`
`“benefits of incorporating.” OmniVision further objects to this Request to the extent that it
`
`seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege, the attorney client work product
`
`doctrine, joint defense or common interest privilege, and/or any other applicable privilege or
`
`immunity. OmniVision further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks publicly
`
`available information that is equally available to IP Bridge. OmniVision further objects to this
`
`Request as unreasonably cumulative or duplicative to the extent
`
`that
`
`it seeks the same
`
`information as other discovery requests in this litigation, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s
`
`First Set of Request For Production Relating to Venue and Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories
`
`to Defendant Relating to Venue.
`
`Subject
`
`to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections,
`
`OmniVision responds as follows: OmniVision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR
`ADMISSIONS RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 13 of 33 PageID #: 810
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this Request and, on that basis, denies
`
`it.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9:
`
`Admit that Defendant has the financial ability to present witnesses for deposition,
`
`hearings, and trial in Delaware.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 9:
`
`In addition to its general objections, OmniVision objects that this Request is overly broad
`
`and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is not related to any claim or
`
`defense in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. OmniVision further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to the phrase
`
`“financial ability.” OmniVision further objects to this Request as premature to the extent it calls
`
`for information in advance of the applicable deadlines set by the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure, the Court, any applicable local rules or agreed to by the parties in this action, or
`
`otherwise calls for information difficult to predict at this stage of the litigation in light of the
`
`large number of patents and accused products at issue. OmniVision further objects to this
`
`Request to the extent that it seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege, the
`
`attorney client work product doctrine, joint defense or common interest privilege, and/or any
`
`other applicable privilege or immunity. OmniVision further objects to this Request as
`
`unreasonably cumulative or duplicative to the extent that it seeks the same information as other
`
`discovery requests in this litigation, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request
`
`For Production Relating to Venue and Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant
`
`Relating to Venue.
`
`Subject
`
`to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections,
`
`OmniVision responds as follows: OmniVision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this Request and, on that basis, denies
`
`it.
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR
`ADMISSIONS RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 14 of 33 PageID #: 811
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10:
`
`Admit that Defendant can require its employee witnesses to appear at depositions,
`
`hearings and trial in Delaware.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 10:
`
`In addition to its general objections, OmniVision objects that this Request is overly broad
`
`and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is not related to any claim or
`
`defense in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. OmniVision further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to the phrase
`
`“require.” OmniVision further objects to this Request as premature to the extent it calls for
`
`information in advance of the applicable deadlines set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`
`the Court, any applicable local rules or agreed to by the parties in this action, or otherwise calls
`
`for information difficult to predict at this stage of the litigation in light of the large number of
`
`patents and accused products at issue. OmniVision further objects to this Request to the extent
`
`that it seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege, the attorney client work
`
`product doctrine,
`
`joint defense or common interest privilege, and/or any other applicable
`
`privilege or immunity. OmniVision further objects to this Request as unreasonably cumulative
`
`or duplicative to the extent that it seeks the same information as other discovery requests in this
`
`litigation, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request For Production Relating to
`
`Venue and Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Relating to Venue.
`
`Subject
`
`to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections,
`
`OmniVision responds as follows: OmniVision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this Request and, on that basis, denies
`
`it.
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11:
`
`Admit that Defendant is unaware of any witness who would be unavailable for trial in
`
`Delaware.
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR
`ADMISSIONS RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 15 of 33 PageID #: 812
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 11:
`
`In addition to its general objections, OmniVision objects that this Request is overly broad
`
`and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is not related to any claim or
`
`defense in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. OmniVision further objects to this Request as vague and ambiguous as to the phrase
`
`“unavailable.” OmniVision further objects to this Request as premature to the extent it calls for
`
`information in advance of the applicable deadlines set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`
`the Court, any applicable local rules or agreed to by the parties in this action, or otherwise calls
`
`for information difficult to predict at this stage of the litigation in light of the large number of
`
`patents and accused products at issue. OmniVision further objects to this Request to the extent
`
`that it seeks information protected by the attorney client privilege, the attorney client work
`
`product doctrine,
`
`joint defense or common interest privilege, and/or any other applicable
`
`privilege or immunity. OmniVision further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks
`
`publicly available information that is equally available to IP Bridge. OmniVision further objects
`
`to this Request to the extent that it seeks information that is outside of OmniVision’s possession,
`
`custody, or control. OmniVision further objects to this Request to the extent that it seeks
`
`confidential
`
`information of a third party. OmniVision further objects to this Request as
`
`unreasonably cumulative or duplicative to the extent that it seeks the same information as other
`
`discovery requests in this litigation, including but not limited to Plaintiff’s First Set of Request
`
`For Production Relating to Venue and Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant
`
`Relating to Venue.
`
`Subject
`
`to and without waiving the foregoing general and specific objections,
`
`OmniVision responds as follows: OmniVision lacks knowledge or information sufficient to
`
`form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in this Request and, on that basis, denies
`
`it.
`
`OMNIVISION’S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO
`IP BRIDGE’S FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR
`ADMISSIONS RELATING TO VENUE
`CASE NO. 1:16-CV-00290-SLR
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 23-1 Filed 08/10/16 Page 16 of 33 PageID #: 813
`
`REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12:
`
`Admit that Defendant will produce documents in this matter in electronic format.
`
`RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSION NO. 12:
`
`In addition to its general objections, OmniVision objects that this Request is overly broad
`
`and unduly burdensome to the extent that it seeks information that is not related to any claim or
`
`defense in this action and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible
`
`evidence. OmniVision further objects to this Request as premature to the extent it calls for
`
`information in advance of the applicable deadlines set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`
`the Court, any applicable local rules or agreed to by the parties in this action. OmniVision
`
`further objects to this Request to t