` 2744
`
`
`
`Exhibit 26
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 114-27 Filed 02/03/16 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
` 2745
`
`Fryer, Jennifer
`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Cc:
`Subject:
`
`Stringfield, Daniel
`Friday, October 30, 2015 5:01 PM
`'Walker, Cy'; ddacus@dacusfirm.com; Billah, Zaed; Hails, Robert; ~~Sony-Raytheon
`Steptoe Raytheon 678 Litigation; Bo Davis; Sue Mellinger
`RE: Raytheon v. Samsung, et al., Lead Case No. 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP - Sony
`Discovery Deficiencies
`
`Cy,
`
`Thank you for your letter of October 27.
`
`First, regarding the 73 enumerated categories of documents listed in our October 13 letter, we disagree that they are
`overly broad, duplicative or inconsistent with the Court’s Discovery Order. To the contrary, the Court’s Discovery Order
`required Sony to produce—without any prompting from Raytheon—all documents and things that are relevant to the
`pleaded claims and defenses involved in this case.
`
`As your letter acknowledges, we provided these categories well in advance of Sony’s document production as a courtesy
`to assist Sony with its document collection and production efforts. When we received and reviewed Sony’s document
`production, and determined that none of the 73 categories were completely satisfied (and most were not even
`addressed), we wrote on October 13 to seek the clarification from Sony to which we are entitled under Paragraph 9(a) of
`the Discovery Order: for each category, Sony must either agree to provide the requested information or provide a basis
`for why it will not produce the requested information.
`
`Contrary to the assertion in your letter, we were willing to discuss, and in fact did discuss, these topics during our
`call. We specifically discussed many of the categories (e.g., chip samples, SIMS analyses, videos and images of the
`processes, etc.) with the understanding that your October 27 letter would address all of the categories. Your responsive
`letter, however, fails to address the specific items we identified as missing from Sony’s production.
`
`Turning to the remainder of your letter, we appreciate Sony’s candor in acknowledging that its technical document
`production is incomplete and further appreciate Sony’s willingness to collect and provide these materials as soon as
`possible. However, Sony has failed to provide an unequivocal commitment to provide the requested items and by a
`date certain. As I explained during our call, because Sony requires Raytheon and its experts to come inspect these
`documents at your DC office, a piecemeal “rolling basis” production is extremely burdensome and costly. You admitted
`that the collection of materials presently available for review was not yet of a sufficient quality or quantity to warrant
`our visit and further indicated your belief that the collection of documents presently available for review were not
`sufficient to make a determination of infringement. As you are aware, P.R. 3‐4(a) required a complete production of
`technical documentation sufficient to show the operation of any aspects of an Accused Instrumentality for this very
`reason. Sony was required to make that production six (6) weeks ago, on September 17, 2015. Sony’s failure to timely
`make that production prejudices Raytheon and Raytheon cannot continue to allow Sony to ignore the deadlines in this
`case and its discovery obligations. We therefore request an in‐person meet and confer with lead and local counsel on
`these issues by November 6, 2015. We suggest that we meet in Dallas, but are open to other locations on a mutually
`agreeable date.
`
`Regarding your claim that the number of sensor models at issue in this case makes it “impractical to collect the
`requested fabrication‐related documents on all the different models within a reasonable period of time,” we
`disagree. Sony has had ample time to collect the requested documents and, in any event, has not sought an extension
`of any deadlines or previously raised this issue with Raytheon or the Court. Your letter appears to suggest that Sony will
`propose certain microelectronic devices to act as representatives for all accused devices in the case. So that we may
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 114-27 Filed 02/03/16 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
` 2746
`fully understand and consider Sony’s proposal, please provide us Sony’s proposed representative‐device framework,
`including the stipulations Sony is willing to make as to the typicality of the representatives, the nature and significance
`of the variations between the representatives and the non‐representatives, and the relative completeness of the
`technical documentation available for the representatives as compared to the non‐representatives.
`
`Regarding the sales, financial and marketing documents as they relate to any accused sensor, whether or not
`manufactured, imported or sold in the U.S., please provide a date certain by which these documents will be produced. If
`we do not have a date certain, we can include this issue in our in‐person meet and confer on the technical documents.
`
`We look forward to working through these issues at our in‐person meet and confer and avoiding motion practice on
`these basic discovery issues.
`
`Best regards,
`
`Dan
`
`
`
`From: Walker, Cy [mailto:CWalker@kenyon.com]
`Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2015 6:05 PM
`To: Stringfield, Daniel; ddacus@dacusfirm.com; Billah, Zaed; Hails, Robert; ~~Sony-Raytheon
`Cc: Steptoe Raytheon 678 Litigation; Bo Davis; Sue Mellinger
`Subject: RE: Raytheon v. Samsung, et al., Lead Case No. 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP - Sony Discovery Deficiencies
`
`Counsel for Raytheon,
`
`Please see the attached correspondence.
`
`Best,
`Cy
`
`Cy Walker
`Kenyon & Kenyon LLP
`1500 K Street, NW | Washington, DC 20005‐1257
`202.220.4218 Phone | 202.220.4201 Fax
`cwalker@kenyon.com | www.kenyon.com
`
`
`From: Stringfield, Daniel [mailto:dstringfield@Steptoe.com]
`Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2015 5:02 PM
`To: ddacus@dacusfirm.com; Walker, Cy; Billah, Zaed; Hails, Robert; ~~Sony-Raytheon
`Cc: Steptoe Raytheon 678 Litigation; Bo Davis; Sue Mellinger
`Subject: Raytheon v. Samsung, et al., Lead Case No. 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP - Sony Discovery Deficiencies
`
`Counsel for Sony,
`
`Please see the attached correspondence.
`
`Best regards,
`
`Daniel S Stringfield
`dstringfield@Steptoe.com
`
`Steptoe
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:15-cv-00341-JRG-RSP Document 114-27 Filed 02/03/16 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
` 2747
`+1 312 577 1267 direct
`Steptoe & Johnson LLP
`+1 312 577 1370 fax
`115 South LaSalle Street
`Suite 3100
`Chicago, IL 60603
`www.steptoe.com
`
`
`
`This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm Steptoe & Johnson LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If
`you are not the intended recipient, please do not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please
`notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.
`
`
`
`3