Here EDIG REQUESTING THE SCHEMATIC CODE OF INFRINGING PRODUCTS
BUT IN RETURN THEY RECEIVE SOME INCOMPLETE VERSION OF THE CODE
IN JAPANESE AND SOME KIND OF EASTERN EUROPEAN LANGUAGES !
THEN SAMSUNG TRYING TO OBJECTS EVERYTHING !
DECLARATION OF MATTHEW S. YUNGWIRTH IN SUPPORT OF
e.DIGITAL CORPORATION'S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG'S MOTION TO
COMPEL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS IN COMPLIANCE WITH PATENT
RULE 3-1 AND TO LIMITe.DIGITALTO ITS PRIOR THEORIES
6. On March 15, I received a hard drive that purportedly contains documents Batesstamped
as EDSAM 00096843-00181144 and that was left at my office on Saturday, March 14.
The documents on that hard drive still are being processed, but I understand they may be
documents that are responsive to e.Digital's discovery requests.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is true and correct copy of a December 30, 2008
E-mail from Matthew Yungwirth to Chris Gerson to which I attached a draft Unopposed Motion
for Leave to Amend e.Digital's Disclosures of Asserted Claims and Preliminary Infringement
Contentions.
HERE SAMSUNG OBJECTS TO EVERYTHING !
10. Samsung objects to e.Digital's definition of "Samsung" as vague and unduly broad
to the extent it improperly expands the scope of discovery by seeking information that is not
currently in the possession, custody, or control of Samsung. Samsung further objects to
e.Digital's definition of "Samsung" as vague and unduly broad to the extent it includes any
corporation, business, or entity other than Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
11. Samsung objects to the definition of "Accused Products" to the extent it includes
Samsung products not disclosed in e.Digital's Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Preliminary
Infringement Contentions ("Infringement Contentions"). Samsung further objects to the
definition of "Accused Products" to the extent it includes products whose disclosure in the
Infringement Contentions does not comply with the requirements of P.R. 3-1. Samsung further
objects to the definition of "Accused Products" to the extent it includes products not made, sold,
or used by or on behalf of Samsung.
12. Samsung objects to these Requests to the extent that they purport to require
Samsung to identify or produce all documents related to a particular topic or issue, as such
requests are unduly burdensome and oppressive. Consistent with their obligations under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Samsung will interview relevant employees and conduct a
reasonable search of those locations where responsive documents may be located.
13. Samsung objects to these Requests as premature to the extent that they call for the
disclosure of expert testimony and opinions in violation of rules governing expert disclosure.
5
14. Samsung objects to these Request as premature to the extent that they call for the
disclosure of contentions prior to deadlines set forth in the Court's November 7, 2008 Docket
Control Order.
15. Samsung objects to each Request to the extent it requests documents and/or things
regarding Samsung products not made, used, or sold in the United States by or on behalf of
Samsung.
16. Samsung's discovery and investigation in connection with this case are
continuing. As a result, Samsung's responses are limited to information obtained and reviewed
to date, and are given without prejudice to Samsung's right to amend or supplement its responses
after considering information obtained or reviewed through further discovery or objections
