You are on page 1of 3

Case 1:14-cv-04988-LAK-FM Document 256-6 Filed 09/08/15 Page 1 of 3


Alston & Bird LLP
Case 1:14-cv-04988-LAK-FM Document 256-6 Filed 09/08/15 Page 2 of 3

From: Wessels-Yen, Amber
Sent: Thursday, May 7, 2015 9:38 PM
To: Straus, Paul (; .STC.Reiziss, Jay
Cc: Geercken, Karl; McCarty, Mark; .STC.Catalano, Jeff; Perry, Robert
(; Joffe, David (
Subject: FW: Vringo/ZTE - Vringo's depositions

Dear Paul and Jay,

We write to follow up on the depositions that Vringo will be taking in the consolidated litigation.

First, on April 29, we noticed the deposition of Oliver Hu in New York, to take place on May 18 and 19 in New
York. When we spoke to you the next day, you said that you did not know Mr. Hu’s availability, and asked about
whether the deposition could take place in June in New York or in May in Hong Kong. We have spoken with our client
about your request, and Vringo’s position is that Mr. Hu should be deposed in New York, and that he should be deposed
in May. Please let us know by no later than Monday, May 10, whether (1) you will be able to produce him in New York
on his noticed dates, (2) you have alternate dates to propose for his deposition in New York in May, or (3) you will not
agree to produce him in New York in May.

Second, you stated on April 30 that you did not yet know whether you would agree to produce the ZTE witnesses listed
in the parties’ 26(a) disclosures for depositions in New York, and asked us to provide names of potential witnesses. We
have only received 191 pages of documents from ZTE to date, and we will provide additional ZTE witness names once we
have been able to depose Mr. Hu and receive a more complete ZTE production. However, we do already know that we
will notice the depositions of Alvin Shen (aka Shen Jianfeng), Guo Xiaoming, and Shen Nan, and we will serve their
deposition notices shortly. Please let us know by no later than Monday, May 10, if ZTE will not agree to produce these
witnesses for their depositions in New York.

Third, when we stated on April 30 that Vringo anticipated that it would need additional depositions in excess of FRCP
30’s 10-deposition limit in order to accommodate third-party discovery, you responded that you would discuss this issue
with your client to determine whether ZTE would stipulate to additional depositions or whether Vringo would need to
raise this issue with Judge Kaplan instead. For your additional information in discussing this issue with your client,
Vringo’s proposal is that Vringo would be able to take a total of 100 hours of deposition testimony on the record (a
number roughly equivalent to fourteen 7-hour days), and that the individual depositions will still be governed by the
seven-hour rule. Vringo’s proposal is still subject to the parties’ existing agreement that where a deponent uses an
interpreter, that deponent’s deposition may take twice the amount of time to accommodate the additional time needed
for translation. In other words, an interpreted deposition will still last up to two seven-hour days, and each two hours of
an interpreted deposition will only count as one hour of time towards the 100-hour limit. Please let us know by
Monday, May 10, whether ZTE will stipulate to this limited extension of time.

Amber Wessels-Yen
90 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10016
tel: 212-210-9594
fax: 212-210-9444
Case 1:14-cv-04988-LAK-FM Document 256-6 Filed 09/08/15 Page 3 of 3