milberg weiss bershad & schulman llp jeff s....

2

3

4

5

6

7

MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD& SCHULMAN LLP

JEFF S. WESTERMAN (94559)jwesterman@milbergweiss .comCHERYL A. WILLIAMS (193532)ewilliams@milbergweiss .comMICHIYO MICHELLE FURUKAWA (234121)mfurukawa @milbergweiss .comOne California Plaza300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3900Los Angeles, CA 9007 1Telephone: (213) 617-1200Facsimile : (213) 617-197 5

Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

GIRARD GIBBS LLPDANIEL C. GIRARD (SBN 114826)dcg@girardgibbs .comJONATHAN K. LEVINE (SBN 220289)jkl@girardgibbs .comAARON M. SHEANIN (SBN 214472)ams@girardgibbs .com601 California Street, Suite 140 0San Francisco, CA 94108Telephone: (415) 981-4800Facsimile : (415) 981-484 6

Local Counsel for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

In re ) Master File No. C-04-2297 SCOMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC ., )

This Document Relates To :

CASE NOS . 04-2297-SC ; 04-2298-SC ; 04-2385-SC ; 04-2410-SC ; 04-2419-SC ; 04-2425-SC; 04-2433-SC; 04-2474-SC; 04-2514-SC ;04-2525-SC ; 04-2570-SC; and 04-4350-SC

CLASS ACTION

DECLARATION OF CHERYL A .WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF REPLYMEMORANDUM RE LETTER OFREQUEST FOR INTERNATIONALJUDICIAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TOTHE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 18MARCH 1970 ON THE TAKING OFEVIDENCE ABROAD IN CIVIL ORCOMMERCIAL MATTERS

ILLIAMS DECL IN SUPP OF REPLY MEMO RE LETTER REQUESTCase No . C-04-2297 SCDOCS\384484v I

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1 4

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I, CHERYL A. WILLIAMS, declare as follows :

1 . I am an attorney duly licensed to practice before all of the Courts of the State of

California . I am an associate of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, Lead Counsel for

plaintiffs in the above-entitled action . I submit this declaration in support of Lead Plaintiffs' Reply

in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Letter of Request for International Judicial Assistance Pursuant

to the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or

Commercial Matters . I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein, and if called upon, I

could and would competently testify thereto .

2. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Evanston Ins. Co . v . OEA,

Inc., Slip Op., No. CIV S-02-1505 DFL PAN, 2006 WL 1652315 (E .D.Cal . June 13, 2006) .

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of a printout from the internet

address at http ://travel .state .gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_683.html .

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of a letter from Douglas J .

Clark to Jeff S . Westerman dated September 29, 2006 .

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit D are true and correct copies of two stipulations and

orders filed in this action, ordered by this Court on October 6, 2006 and October 30, 2006 ,

respectively .

6. If the parties cannot reach a settlement agreement there is still discovery required b y

both sides to prepare for trial .

7 . After reviewing Defendants' initial document production of approximately 42,00 0

pages, Plaintiffs discovered that both WPI's Taiwan and Hong Kong branches may possess relevant

evidence in this action. To minimize costs, Plaintiffs did not want to formally pursue evidence

abroad unless absolutely necessary . Instead, Plaintiffs initially attempted to get the requisite

evidence through a number of different methods including subpoenas to other third parties,

investigators, informal negotiation with WPI through local counsel, and from Defendants

themselves . The negotiations with WPI seemed promising but ultimately stalled on August 18,

2006 .

II WILLIAMS DECL IN SUPP OF REPLY MEMO RE LETTER REQUEST - 1 -CASE NO . C-04-2297 SC

11 DOCS\384484v 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from the

transcript of the Deposition of Joanna Kwok dated August 30, 2006 .

9. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of a printout from the internet

address at http ://www.hcch .net/index en.php?act publications .details&pid=3309&dtid=2 from the

website of the Hague Conference on Private International Law .

10 . Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of a printout from the internet

address at http://travel .state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_650 .html .

I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States, that the foregoing is

true and correct . Executed this 17th day of November, 2006, at Los Angeles, CA .

/s/ Cheryl A . Williams

CHERYL A. WILLIAMS

II WILLIAMS DECL IN SUPP OF REPLY MEMO RE LETTER REQUEST - 2 -CASE NO . C-04-2297 SC

11 DOCS\384484v 1

Exhibit A

of 5

ApOa-1w.Slip Copy Page 1

Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1652315 (E.D.Cal .)(Cite as: Slip Copy)

NBriefs and Other Related Document sEvanston Ins . Co. v . OEA, Inc .E.D.Cal ., 2006.Onlythe Westlaw citation is currently available .

United States District Court,E.D. California.EVANSTON INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff,

V.OEA, INC . and Does 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.And Related Cross-Claims .

No. CIV S-02-1505 DFL PAN .

June 13, 2006 .

accidents, while in the course and scope of theiremployment. Both were badly injured . Wise lost herthumb and portions of the fingers of her right hand,among other injuries. Shugart lost the sight in oneeye, among other injuries . OEA tendered the claimto the Underwriters, as well as other insurancecompanies that had issued policies to OEA, fordefense and indemnity .

The Underwriters denied the claim and OEA filedclaims against the Underwriters for breach ofcontract and breach of the covenant of good faithand fair dealing .

Dirk McKenzie Schenkkan , Howard RiceNemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin, Ralph Well sRobinson , Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman andDicker, San Francisco , CA, for Plaintiff .Daven Gerald Lowhurst, Thelen Reid and PriestLLP, San Francisco, CA, John L. Viola, LonnieEarl Woolverton, Thelen Reid and Priest, LosAngeles, CA, for Defendants .

ORDERJOHN F. MOULDS, Magistrate Judge .*1 Defendant OEA's motion for issuance of lettersrogatory to take the deposition of Dudley Phillipswas filed January 20, 2006. Consideration of themotion was deferred , and on June 12, 2006, atelephonic status conference was held . John L.Viola appeared for defendant and counterclaimantOEA. Andrew T. Houghton appeared forcounter-defendant Certain Underwriters at Lloyd'sof London ("the Underwriters") . Upon review ofthe motion and the documents in support andopposition, upon hearing the arguments of plain ti ffand counsel and good cause appearing therefor,THE COURT FINDS AS FOLLOWS :

OEA was sued in California state court by KarenWise and Patricia Shubart, two employees of OEAAerospace, Inc ., a wholly-owned subsidiary ofOEA, for injuries sustained in two unrelated

The Underwriters have identified Dudley Phillips asan individual who was privy to events that relateddirectly to Underwriters' denial of OEA's claim andwho made the decision to by the Underwriters todeny OEA's claim . OEA seeks to elicit suchinformation through questioning at the deposition ofMr. Phillips . Mr . Phillips resides at Flat 68, ThomasMoore House, London EC2Y 8BT (TelephoneNumber 0044 207 588 0418) .

The courts have inherent authority to issue lettersrogatory . See United States v. Reagan, 453 F.2d165, 172 (6th Cir .1971),FN' cert. denied, 406 U.S.946 (1972); United States v. Staples, 256 F.2d 290,292 (9th Cir .1958) .

FN1. Title "28 U.S .C. § 1781 recognizes,impliedly at least, the power of federalcourts to transmit letters rogatory toforeign tribunals ." United States v. Reagan,453 F .2d at 172 .

Rule 28(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedureprovides that a deposition may be taken in a foreigncountry (1) pursuant to any applicable treaty ofconvention, or (2) pursuant to a letter of request(whether or not captioned a letter rogatory), or (3)on notice before a person authorized to administeroaths in the place where the examination is held,

© 2006 Thomson/West . No Claim to Orig . U.S . Govt. Works .

http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstrearnn .aspx?prft=HTMLE&destination=atp&sv=Spli . . . 11/14/2006

of 5

Slip Copy Page 2

Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1652315 (E .D.Cal.)(Cite as: Slip Copy)

either by the law thereof or by the law of the UnitedStates, or (4) before a person commissioned by thecourt, and a person so commissioned shall have thepower by virtue of the commission to administerany necessary oath and take testimony . The Rulecontinues, "It is not requisite to the issuance of acommission or a letter of request [aka letterrogatory] FN2 that the taking of the deposition inany other manner is impracticable or inconvenient;and both a commission and a letter of request maybe issued in proper cases." This latter language wasinserted by amendment in 1963, prior to which thenotice procedure had been preferred and somecourts had been unwilling to issue commissions orletters rogatory unless it was impossible orimpractical to obtain the testimony in any otherway . Zassenhaus v. Evening Star Newspaper Co .,404 F.2d 1361, 1363 (D.C.Cir.1968), citing 4Moore, Federal Practice, pp. 28.03 at 1922, 28 .06at 1935-37 (1940)(2d ed .1967) . As stated in theAdvisory Committee Notes, the amendment wasdesigned to "overcome this judicial antipathy and topermit a sound choice between depositions under aletter rogatory and on notice or by commission inlight of all the circumstances." Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, Rule 28(b), Advisory CommitteeNotes re 1963 Amendment .

FN2. In 1993, the term "letter of request"was substituted for the term "letterrogatory" "because it is the primarymethod provided by the Hague Convention ." Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule28(b), Advisory Committee Notes re 1993Amendment .

. 2 Courts have held that the 1963 amendment toRule 28(b)(3) indicates that "the discretion trialcourts formerly had in deciding whether to issue acommission or letters rogatory has beencircumscribed ." In re Bankers Trust Company v.

`.Bethlehem Steel Corporation, 752 F .2d 874, 890(3d Cir .1984) . Under the new rule, some courtshave gone so far as to hold that a party opposingissuance a letter roga ory must establish goodcause for denial. I ., citmg ssenhaus, 2 atI . 64 . er courts, while rejecting imposition of a "good cause" standard, have nonetheless required a

district court den ing issuance of a letter rogatoryto s ome reason for its decision . --See In reBan rs Trust, 752 F.2d at 890 .

Being aware of no Ninth Circuit precedent on thequestion, this court will apply the rule that letters ofrogatory shall issue unless good cause is shownotherwise. Zassenhaus, 404 F .2d at 1364 ; see alsoWright, Miller & Marcus, Federal Practice &Procedure (1994), § 2083 ("There are still cases inwhich it may be proper to refuse the issuance of acommission or letters rogatory, but there must besome good reason to deny a party the particular typeof judicial assistance it seeks .") Nonetheless, Rule28(b) must be read together with Rule 26(c),Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which permits acourt to make any order "which justice requires toprotect a party or person from annoyance,embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden orexpense." Rule 26(c), Federal Rules of CivilProcedure ; see also B & L Drilling Electronics, 87F.R.D. 543, 545 (W.D.Ok.1978)(granting requestfor letter rogatory with caveat that discoveryproceed under Rule 31 by way of depositions onwritten questions, in view of burden and expenseinvolved in taking oral depositions in Alberta,Canada) ; see also DBMS Consultants Limited v .Computer Associates International, 131 F.R.D .367, 369 (D .Mass .1990)(granting letter rogatorylimited to Rule 31 deposition on written questions,without prejudice to renewed request to takedeposition in Australia if the less expensive and lessburdensome deposition method proved inadequate) .

William V. Vessey testified at his deposition that heand Dudley Phillips worked closely with Condon &Forsyth, specifically with Andrew Houghton, toevaluate OEA's claim. (Vessey Dep. at 64.) Vesseyfurther stated that he and Phillips relied on theinvestigations and conclusions of Houghton and thatneither he nor Phillips played a direct role in theclaim investigation . (Vessey Dep . at 65-66, 71-72.)As noted by Judge McMahon, however, thiscontradicts the Underwriters' assertion, throughcounsel, "that Houghton did not make the decisionto deny the claim." Evanston Insurance Company v .OEA, Inc., et al., Misc. M8-85, at 10(S .D.N.Y.2006) .N3 Phillips' role here is critical;his deposition is relevant and necessary to th e

© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig . U .S . Govt. Works .

http : //web2.westlaw . com/print/printstream .aspx?prft=HTMLE&destination=atp&sv=Spli. . . 11/14/2006

of5

Slip Copy Page 3

Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1652315 (E .D.Cal.)(Cite as : Slip Copy)

prosecution of this action .

FN3. A court may take judicial notice ofcourt records. See MGIC Indem . Co. v.Weisman, 803 F.2d 500, 505 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118,119 (9th Cir. 1980).

Accordingly, defendant OEA's motion for issuanceof letters rogatory to take the deposition of DudleyPhillips will be granted.

*3 Under the terms of the Hague Convention, 28U .S .C . § 1781, depositions are conducted by a letterof request where the evidence to be addressed atsuch deposition is intended for use in a judicialproceeding. Both the United States and GreatBritain are signatories to the Hague Convention .Letters of request under the Hague Convention mustspecify (a) the authority requesting its executionand the authority requested to execute it ; (b) thenames and addresses of the persons, theproceedings and the representatives, if any; (c) thenature of the proceedings in which the evidence isrequired, giving only necessary information inregard thereto; (d) the evidence to be obtained orthe judicial act to be performed. Where appropriate,the letter must also specify among other things, (e)the names and addresses of the person to beexamined; and, (f) the questions to be put to theperson to be examined or a statement of the subjectmatter about which they are to be examined .Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad inCivil or Commercial Matters (Hague Convention),Article 3 .

In light of the above, the court will issue herewith aletter of request under the Hague Convention .

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that :

1 . Defendant OEA's January 20, 2006 motion forissuance of letters rogatory to take the depositionof Dudley Phillips is granted;

2 . A Letter of Request under the Hague Conventionwill issue herewith ; and

3 . . The Clerk of the Court shall affix its official sealto the Letter of Request and shall send the original,sealed, Letter of Request, by international registeredmail, to the Senior Master of the Supreme Court,Queen's Bench Division , Royal Courts of Justice,Strand London WC2A 2LL, England, U .K .

E.D.Cal.,2006 .Evanston Ins . Co . v. OEA, Inc .Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1652315 (E .D.Cal . )

Briefs and Other Related Documents (Back to top)

• 2006 WL 822049 (Trial Motion, Memorandumand Affidavit) Reply Memorandum in FurtherSupport of Certain Underwriters At lloyd's Et Al .'sMotion For Reconsideration Of Their Motion ForPartial Summary Judgment On Counterclaimant'sTenth Claim For Relief (Bad Faith and PunitiveDamages) (Feb. 22, 2006) Original Image of thisDocument (PDF)• 2006 WL 822045 (Trial Motion, Memorandumand Affidavit) OEA, Inc.'s Response to CertainUnderwriters at Lloyd's of London's Motion forReconsideration of its Motion for Partial SummaryJudgment (Feb. 8, 2006) Original Image of thisDocument (PDF)• 2006 WL 507618 (Trial Pleading) OEA, Inc .'s(Proposed) First Amended Counterclaims forDamages (Jan. 31, 2006) Original Image of thisDocument (PDF)• 2006 WL 687229 (Trial Motion, Memorandumand Affidavit) Counterdefendants CertainUnderwriters at Lloyd's Et Al .'s Memorandum ofPoints and Authorities in Opposition to Oea, Inc .'sEx Parte Application for Issuance of LettersRogatory for the Deposition of Dudley Phillips(Jan. 24, 2006) Original Image of this Document(PDF )• 2006 WL 687228 (Trial Motion, Memorandumand Affidavit) Memorandum of Points andAuthorities in Support of Certain Underwriters atLloyd's et Al .'s Motion for Reconsideration of theirMotion for Partial Summary Judgment onCounterclaimant's Tenth Claim for Relief (BadFaith and Punitive Damages) (Jan . 13, 2006)Original Image of this Document (PDF)• 2005 WL 3630430 (Trial Motion, Memorandumand Affidavit) Memorandum of Points and

2006 Thomson/West . No Claim to Orig . U.S . Govt . Works .

http://web2 . westlaw.comlprintlprintstream .aspx?prf --HTMLE&destination=atp&sv=Spli . . . 11 /14/2006

of5

Slip Copy

Slip Copy, 2006 WL 1652315 (E .D.Cal.)(Cite as: Slip Copy)

Authorities in Support of CertainUnderwriters atLloyd's et Al .'s Motion, Pursuant to F . R. Civ. P . 56,for Partial Summary Judgment Oncounterclaimant'stenth claimFor Relief (Bad Faith and PunitiveDamages) (Nov . 4, 2005) Original Image of thisDocument (PDF)• 2005 WL 2657541 (Trial Motion, Memorandumand Affidavit) Reply Memorandum of Points andAuthorities of Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's etal.'s Motion for Reconsideration Pursuant to Rule54(b) (Sep. 1, 2005) Original Image of thisDocument (PDF)• 2005 WL 2657540 (Trial Motion, Memorandumand Affidavit) OEA, Inc .'s Amended Response toCertain Underwriters at Lloyd's Motion forReconsidertion Pusuant to Rule 54(B) (Aug . 24,2005) Original Image of this Document withAppendix (PDF)• 2005 WL 2657539 (Trial Motion, Memorandumand Affidavit) Defendant and CounterclaimantOEA, Ines Response to Counterdefendant CertainUnderwriters at Lloyd's Motion to Amend Status(Pre-Trial Scheduling) Order (Aug. 19, 2005)Original Image of this Document (PDF)

END OF DOCUMENT

© 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig . U .S. Govt. Works .

Page 4

http://web2 .westlaw.comlprintlprintstream.aspx9prft=HTMLE&destination=atp&sv=Spli . . . 11/14/2006

Exhibit B

Preparation of Letters Rogatory Page 1 of 12

Wednesday November 15, 200 6

PREPARATION OF LETTERS ROGATORY

DISCLAIMER : THE INFORMATION IN THIS CIRCULAR RELATING TO THE LEGALREQUIREMENTS OF SPECIFIC FOREIGN COUNTRIES IS OBTAINED FROM PASTEXPERIENCE AND IS NOT NECESSARILY AUTHORITATIVE . QUESTIONS INVOLVINGINTERPRETATION OF SPECIFIC FOREIGN LAWS SHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO FOREIGNCOUNSEL

LEGAL AUTHORITY: 28 U.S.C . 1781(a)(2); 28 U .S.C. 1696; Rule 28(b), Fed . R. Civ. P. ; Rule 4(f)(2)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. ; Rule 15d, Fed . R. Crim. P .22 C.F.R. 92 .66(b)&(c) ; Article 5(j), ViennaConvention on Consular Relations, 21 U.S.T. 77, 596 UNTS 261 ; TIAS 6820 (where applicable) ;Bilateral Consular Conventions (where applicable) . Letters rogatory have also been issued under the"All Writs Act", 28 U .S.C. 1651 .

SELECTED CITATIONS : For general information about letters rogatory see :

Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, (1970), Section 2083 and Section 1134 and 1992Supp. pp . 206-207);

8 Wigmore, Evidence (rev . McNaughton 1961), Sec. 2195a (ii) ;

Restatement (Second) Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Sec . 40 (1965) ;

Restatement (Third) Foreign Relations Law of the United States, Sec . 403 (1988) .

WHAT IS A LETTER ROGATORY : A letter rogatory is a formal request from a court in onecountry to "the appropriate judicial authorities" in another country requesting compulsion oftestimony or documentary or other evidence or effect service of process . Although statutory authoritygenerally refers to the instrument as a "letter rogatory", the terms "letter rogatory" and "letter ofrequest" (which is used specifically in the Hague Evidence Convention) have come to be virtuallysynonymous in actual practice . (See Epstein & Snyder, International Litigation : A Guide toJurisdiction, Practice & Strategy, 2nd. Sec. 10 .09, p. 10 .13 -10.14 . ; Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed .1994), Fed . R. Civ. P. 4(f)(2)(B) Advisory Committee's Note (West Supp . 1993).) In some countrieswhich do not permit the taking of depositions of willing witnesses, letters rogatory are the onlymethod of obtaining evidence or serve process . Letters rogatory can be used in civil and criminalmatters, and have been used in administrative matters . The execution of a request for judicialassistance by the foreign court is based on comity between nations, absent a specific treaty obligationsuch as the Hague Evidence Convention or Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (MLAT)treaties . See our general flyer on "Obtaining Evidence Abroad" or the "Hague Evidence Convention"for a further discussion of these subjects . Consular Conventions generally include language whichauthorizes transmission of letters rogatory through diplomatic channels . This does not obligate theforeign country to execute the request, but simply provides a formal avenue by which the requestsmay be made . If there is no Consular Convention in force between the United States and the foreigncountry, letters rogatory are received by foreign authorities on the basis of comity . Letters rogatoryare a time consuming , cumbersome process and should not be utilized unless there are no otheroptions available .

HOW IS A LETTER ROGATORY EXECUTED : The foreign court will execute a letter rogatoryin accordance with the laws and regulations of the foreign country . In obtaining evidence, forexample, in most cases an American attorney will not be permitted to participate in such a

http://travel.state .gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_683 .html?css=print 11/15/2006

Preparation of Letters Rogatory Page 2 of 1 2

proceeding . Occasionally a local, foreign attorney may be permitted to attend such a proceeding andeven to put forth additional questions to the witness . Not all foreign countries utilize the services ofcourt reporters or routinely provide verbatim transcripts . Sometimes the presiding judge will dictatehis recollection of the witness's responses . See Born & Westin, 305, 308 ; Ristau, InternationalJudicial Assistance, Sec. 3-2-1 (4), p . 79 (1995 supp .); Epstein & Snyder, Sec. 10.09, p. 10-13 - 10-16 (1994 supp) . See discussion below on drafting a letter rogatory which takes these peculiaritiesinto account .

AUTHORITY FOR ISSUANCE OF A LETTER ROGATORY : The power of federal courts toissue le tters rogatory derives from 28 U.S.C. 1781 and from the court's "inherent" authority. See DeVilleneuve v. Morning Journal Ass'n ., 206 F. 70 (S .D.N.Y. 1913), Zassenhaus v . Evening StarNewspaper Co., 404 F. 2d 1361 (D.C. Cir . 1968) . See also 28 U.S.C. 1651 ("All Writs Act") . Butsee, DBMS Consultants , Ltd . v . Computer Assocs . Int'l, Inc ., 131 F.R.D. 367, 369 (D. Mass . 1990) ;United States v . Reagan, 453 F.2d 165, 171-173 (6th Cir. 1971), cert. denied , 406 U.S. 946 (1972) ;United States v . Strong, 608 F . Supp. 188, 192-194 (E.D. Pa. 1985); United States v. Staples, 256F.2d 290 (9th Cir . 1958); B & L Drilling Electric v. Totco, 87 F .R.D. 543, 545 (W.D. Okla . 1978).

Compulsion of Evidence : When a witness is not willing to testify or produce documents or otherevidence voluntarily, the assistance of foreign authorities generally must be sought . The customarymethod of compelling evidence is by letter rogatory . See Rule 28(b), Fed . R. Civ. P . ; Born & Westin,305-308; Cumulative Digest of United States Practice in International Law, 1981-1988, Departmentof State, Office of the Legal Adviser, 1450, 1509-1510 (1994) ; and Digest of United States Practicein International Law, 1977, 498-499, Department of State, Office of the Legal Adviser . See Ristau,Sec . 3-3-2, Application for the Issuance of a Letter of Request (Letter Rogatory) . Consult our flyer"Obtaining Evidence Abroad" regarding other methods of extraterritorial discovery of documents incontrol of persons over whom the court has in personam jurisdiction .

CRIMINAL CASES : The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for the issuance ofrequests for judicial assistance . Consequently, Rule 57, Fed. R. Crim. P., applies . Rule 57 provides inpertinent part: "In all cases not provided for by rule, the district judges and magistrates may regulatetheir practice in any manner not inconsistent with these rules or those of the district in which theyact" . Evidence, including documents and the testimony of witnesses, may properly be sought bymeans of a request for judicial assistance before or after formal charges have been made . UnitedStates v. Reagan, supra, 453 F2d at 173 n.4; In Re Grand Jury 81-2, 550 F. Supp. 24, 29 (W.D. Mich,1982); United States v. Strong, supra, 608 F . Supp. at 194 .

ADMINISTRATIVE CASES : Except as provided by statute, U.S. Administrative agencies do nothave the power to compel persons outside the U .S. who have no contact with the U.S. (and thereforeare not under a federal court's personal jurisdiction) to produce evidence for an investigation .Administrative agencies have succeeded in obtaining commissions to take depositions and lettersrogatory using the "All Writs Act" (28 U.S .C. 1651). See: CFTC v. Nahas, 738 F .2d 487 (D .C. Cir.1984); FTC v. Compagnie de Saint Gobain-Pont-a-Mousson, 636 F .2d 1300 (D.C. Cir. 1980) .Congress has decided, since Saint Gobain, that the investigative demands of the FTC and the IRS aremore in the nature of complaints than subpoenae . Thus, those two agencies have been expresslyauthorized to serve investigative demands in foreign states in a manner parallel to the service ofprocess provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules of Federal Procedure . See 15 U.S.C. 57b-1 (F.T.C.) and 26U.S.C. 982 (I .R.S .) . All the federal securities statutes authorize the SEC to subpoena witnesses "fromany place in the United States ." This statutory language, commonly employed in the statutesgoverning most American regulatory agencies, has been construed by U .S. courts to be a broad andflexible authorization to require production of evidence from anywhere in the world, so long asservice has been properly effected in the U .S. See, SEC v . Minas de Artemisa, S .A., 150 F. 2d 21 5

http://travel .state .gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_683 .html?css=print 11/15/2006


(9th Cir. 1945) ; Federal Maritime Commission v. DeSmedt, 366 F .2d 464 (2d Cir .), cert . denied, 385U.S. 974 (1966) ; CAB v. Deutche Lufthansa A.G., 591 F.2d 951 (D.C. Cir . 1979); SEC v . Zanganeh,470 F. Supp 1307 (D.D.C. 1978) .

SERVICE OF PROCESS : 28 U.S.C. 1696 and Rule 4(f)(2)(B) Fed. R. Civ . P. provide for the useof letters rogatory for service of process . Service of a judicial summons, as set forth in Fed. R. Crim.P. 9(c) may also be effected pursuant to a letter rogatory. See Ristau, Sec. 3-1-12, p. 71 (1995 supp .)for a form for application for the issuance of a Letter of Request (Letter Rogatory) to Serve a JudicialDocument. See also, In Re Letters Rogatory Out of First Civil Court of City of Mexico, 261 Fed . 652(S.D.N.Y. 1919); 44 Colum. L. Rev. 72 (1944) ; Note, 58 Yale L.J. 1193 (1949); Republic Int'l Corp .v. Amco Eng'rs, 516 F.2d 161, 164 (9th Cir. 1975). In some countries service by letters rogatory isthe only recognized method of service . If the laws of the foreign country permit other methods ofservice, the use of le tters rogatory is not recommended given the habitual time delays of up to ayear or more in execution of the requests . The letters rogatory procedure is "complex, costly andtime consuming" and should be avoided where possible . (See Casad, Jurisdiction in Civil Actions,4.06(2) (1983 & Supp. 1986) ; Horlick, A Practical Guide to Service of United States ProcessAbroad, 14 Int'1 Law. 637, 642 (1980).) If the laws of the foreign country only recognize service byletter rogatory and eventual enforcement of a U.S. judgment in the foreign country is envisioned,requesting counsel may determine that service pursuant to a letter rogatory is necessary . See Born &Westin, 123-125, 133-136; In re Letters Rogatory out of First Civil Court, 261 Fed . 652 (S.D.N.Y.1919) ; Service of Process on Foreign Parties by Letters Rogatory, 52 Inter Alia F1 (May/June 1987) ;Longley, Serving Process, Subpoenas and Other Documents in a Foreign Country, Proc . A.B .A., Sec .of Int'l & Comp. L. 34, 35 (1959) ; Cumulative Digest of United States Practice in International Law,1981-1988, Department of State, Office of the Legal Adviser, 1442, 1448 (1994) .

SAMPLE LETTERS ROGATORY: There is annexed a basic sample letter rogatory, but see, 4 J .Moore, Moore's Federal Practice 28 .05-08 (2d ed . 1991) (Caveat : Do not draft the letter rogatory as arequest from the President of the United States, but rather as a request from the requesting court .) ; 3J. Moore & L. Framer, Moore's Manual, Federal Practice Forms, Nos . 15 :21 ; 15:22 (2d ed. 1988) ;2A Bender's Federal Practice Forms, Fed . R. Civ . P. 28(b) (1991); 8 Wigmore, Evidence, rev.(McNaughton 1961) Sec . 2195a (ii) ; B. Ristau, International Judicial Assistance, Vol . 1, Part III, Ch .3, Section 3-3-1/3-3-2, pp . 94-101 (1995 supp .); Epstein & Snyder, International Litigation, Section10.09, 10-13 - 10-16 (2d ed . 1994); Born & Westin, International Civil Litigation in United StatesCourts, 308-309, (1989) .

GUIDELINES ON DRAFTING LETTERS ROGATORY: Letters rogatory should be written insimple, non-technical English and should not include unnecessary information which may confusecourt in the receiving foreign state . Avoid use of the term "discovery" . Similarly, to avoid theappearance of a "fishing expedition" which may result in refusal of the foreign country to execute therequest, try not to use phrases such as "any and all documents" . Requests for documents should be asspecific as possible . If particular procedures to be followed by the foreign court are preferable ,include the specifics in the letter rogatory (for example, verbatim transcript, place witness underoath, permission for American or foreign counsel to attend or participate in proceedings if possible,etc .) For general guidance on drafting letters rogatory see Ristau, Sec . 3-3-2, 95-96 ; 3-3-5, p . 103(1995 supp .); Born & Westin 308 .

The letter rogatory should be addressed "To Appropriate Judicial Authority of (Insert name ofCountry). " (See The Mandu, 11 F . Supp. 845, EDNY 1935) . The essential elements of a letterrogatory are :

(a) a request for international judicial assistance is being made in the interests of justice ;

http ://travel .state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_683 .html?css=print 11/15/2006


(b) a brief synopsis of the case, including identification of the parties and the nature of the claim andrelief sought to enable the foreign court to understand the issues involved ;

(c) type of case [civil, criminal, administrative] ;

(d) the nature of the assistance required [compel testimony or production of evidence ; service ofprocess] ;

(e) name, address and other identifiers, such as corporate title, of the person abroad to be served orfrom whom evidence is to be compelled, documents to be served ;

(f) list of questions to be asked, where applicable, generally in the form of written interrogatories ;

(g) list of documents or other evidence to be produced ;

(h) the requesting court should include a statement expressing a willingness to provide similarassistance to judicial authorities of the receiving state [28 U .S.C. 1782] ;

(i) the requesting court should include a statement expressing a willingness to reimburse the judicialauthorities of the receiving state for costs incurred in executing the requesting court's letter rogatory.

AUTHENTICATION REQUIREMENTS : Letters rogatory must be issued under the seal of thecourt and the signature of the judge. The clerk should not sign on behalf of the judge. (See Ristau,Sec. 3-1-13, p . 73 at note 14, (1995 supp .); Born & Westin 307 .) For most countries, the seal of thecourt and signature of the judge is sufficient. Consult our country-specific information via ourautofax service or via our home page on the Internet for guidance about procedures for particularcountries . Some countries require further authentication of letters rogatory . Do not waste time andmoney on these additional steps unless your local foreign counsel, this office, or some otherauthoritative source advises that it is necessary . If there is no specific flyer for the country inquestion, consult the geographic division of the Office of American Citizens Services and CrisisManagement. See "Questions" below .

TRIPLE CERTIFICATION, CHAIN AUTHENTICATION AND AUTHENTICATION BYTHE FOREIGN EMBASSY IN THE UNITED STATES : As noted above, these additionalauthentication steps are not required by most countries . Some countries require TripleCertification of the letter rogatory which means that the judge signs the documents ; the clerkcertifies that the judge is the judge ; the judge certifies that the clerk is the clerk) . This is also knownas an exemplification certificate (A .O. form 132). In addition to the triple certification orexemplification process, some foreign countries require that the letter rogatory be authenticated bythe embassy or consulate of the foreign country in the United States . This is accomplished by "chainauthentication" summarized below. (See Ristau Sec . 3-1-13, 1994 Rev., p . 73 at note 14 . )

State Court Documents :

1 . Seal and Signature of the Judge ;

2. State Secretary of State or other authority authenticates the seal of the State Court; (For a list ofstate authentication offices, see our information flyers on the "Hague LegalizationConvention " (AUTOFAXdocument 1053) and "General Authentication Flyer" (A UTOFAXdocument1046) available via our autofax service and our Consular Home Page on the Internet explainedunder "AdditionalInformation" below. See also our Authentications Off ce Home Pageat . ./family/abduction hague 012.html .

3. U.S. Department of State Authentications Office authenticates the seal of the State Secretary o f

http://travel .state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_683 .html?css=print 11/15/2006


State or comparable authority as explained below;

4. Embassy or Consulate or the foreign country in the U.S. authenticates the seal of the U .S .Department of State . (For the address and telephone number of foreign embassies see our country-specific consular information sheets on our Home Page on the Internet under "entry requirement" orour brochure "visa requirements of foreign governments" which also lists the phone numbers of theforeign consulates in the U.S.)

Federal Court Documents :

1 . Seal and Signature of the Judge ;

2. Seal of the U .S. Court is authenticated by the U.S. Department of Justice, Management Division,Security Program Staff, Physical Security Office, 9th and Pennsylvania Avenue, Room 6531,Washington, D.C. 20530, tel : (202) 514-2314 or 514-4667 or the Administrative Office of the U .S .Courts .

3 . U.S . Department of State Authentications Office authenticates the seal of the Department ofJustice or the Administrative Office of the U .S. Courts as explained below ;

4. Embassy or Consulate or the foreign country in the U.S . authenticates the seal of the U.S .Department of State .

Expediting the Authentication Process : It may be possible to authenticate the documents at theforeign consulate nearest you and avoid the interim steps if the foreign consulate has the court's sealor the state Secretary of State's seal on file . This office will NOT undertake the task of obtainingthe authentications of the State, the Departments of Justice and State and the foreignembassies .

U.S. State Department Authentication Office, 518 23rd St ., N.W., Washington , D.C. 20520,(202) 647-5002 Fee: $5.00 . For additional information, call the Federal Information Center : 1-800-688-9889, and choose option 6 after you press 1 for touch tone phones . Walk-in service is availablefrom the Authentications Office from 8 a.m. to 12 noon Monday-Friday, except holidays . Walk-inservice is limited to 15 documents per person per day (documents can be multiple pages) . Processingtime for authentication requests sent by mail is 5 working days or less . An information flyerexplaining the authentication process is available . See also the U .S. State Department'sAuthentications Office homp-p4ge .

Further Authenticating the U .S . State Department Seal : Occassionally, foreign countries may requestthat after the embassy of the foreign country in the United States authenticates the seal of the U.S.Department of State, the documents be further authenticated in the foreign country by the U .S.embassy and/or the foreign country's Foreign Ministry . U.S. embassies abroad are authorized toauthenticate the seal of the U.S. Department of State for a $10.00 fee. (See 22 C.F.R. 92.41(c) ;Schedule of Fees, 22 C.F.R. 22.1 item 45(f) )

Hague Legalization Convention Countries : If the country where the documents are to be used is aparty to the Hague Legalization Convention, and that country requires further authentication of thedocuments beyond the seal and signature of the judge, consult our information flyer on the HagueLegalization Convention for guidance on how to obtain the Convention "apostille" certificate . Seealso the U.S. State Devartment's Authentications Office home-page .

TRANSLATION REQUIREMENTS : The letters rogatory and any accompanying documents mustbe translated into the official language of the foreign country. The translator should execute anaffidavit as to the validity of the translation before a notary . See Ristau, Sec . 2-2-2(2), p . 96-97 (199 5


Preparation of Letters Rogatory

supp.)

Page 6 of 1 2

NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED : Forward to the Department of State for transmittal to theforeign authorities : the original English version bearing the seal of the court and signature of thejudge [or a certified copy] ; a photocopy of the English; the original translation and a photocopy ofthe translation . The original documents will be served upon the designated recipient or depositedwith the foreign court in connection with a request for evidence, and the copies returned to the courtin the U.S. as proof of execution. See Ristau, Sec . 2-2-2(2), p. 96-97 (1995 supp.) For requestsinvolving multiple witnesses in diverse locations, either prepare a separate letter rogatory for eachwitness, or provide a certified copy of the single letter rogatory (plus translation and duplicate copynoted above) for each witness. The foreign country may assign the matter to different courts . TheU.S . embassy will endeavor to ensure that evidence obtained will be transmitted to the court in theU.S . as it is received from the Foreign Ministry rather than held by the Foreign Ministry until all theevidence has been obtained . The same procedures apply to requests involving service of processupon multiple persons .

SERVICE VIA LETTERS ROGATORY UNDER SECTION 1608(B) OF THE FOREIGNSOVERIEGN IMMUNITIES ACT : Letters rogatory requesting service of process on an agency orinstrumentality of a foreign government pursuant to 28 U .S .C. 1608(b)(3)(A) must be transmitted tothe Department of State, Office of American Citizens Services, Room 481 1A, 2201 C Street, N.W.,Washington, D .C. 20520.

TRANSMITTAL OF THE REQUEST : Letters rogatory generally may be transmitted to foreignjudicial authorities through the "diplomatic channel". The "diplomatic channel" is a circuitous routeby which the documents are sent to the foreign court . Unless the foreign country accepts transmittaldirectly from court-to-court or through local foreign counsel, you will be confronted with th edifficulties of at least some portion of the diplomatic channel described below . See Ristau, Sec . 3-3-3, p. 102 (1995 supp .) described below . If your local counsel in the foreign country advise that lettersrogatory may be transmitted directly by your foreign counsel to the foreign court you may elect toavoid the time consuming diplomatic channel . If the Department of State information about aparticular country reflects that use of the diplomatic channel is required, you may wish to seekclarification of contrary guidance from other sources .

Cover Letter : The letters rogatory and accompanying documents may be submitted to the Office ofAmerican Citizens Services and Crisis Management, Room 4811A N.S., Department of State, 2201 CStreet N .W., Washington, D .C. 20520. Please write the name of the foreign country on the outside ofthe envelope . The documents should be accompanied by a letter along the following lines :

Foreign Country :

Name of Case:

Docket Number:

Nature of Request: (Service of Process ; Compulsion of Testimony; Production of Documents, etc .)

Person to be Served or from Whom Evidence is to be Obtained : (name and address mandatory,phone number if possible . )

Mailing Address of American Court to Which executed Request Should be Returned :

Special Instructions : (Example, Federal Express Account Number; U.S. hearing/trial date, etc.)

Deposit Enclosed :

http://travel .state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_683.html?css=print 11/15/2006


Statement of Responsibility for Additional Costs incurred in excess of the required deposit whichaccompanies the letter .

Local Foreign Counsel (if any) : (name and address, phone number)

Name, Address, telephone and fax number of requesting attorney in U .S . :

What is the Diplomatic Channel?: The documents proceed along the following lines :

1 . Drafted by American attorney . . .

2. Issued Under Seal of American court and Signature of Judge . . .

3 . Returned by Issuing Court to American Attorney . . .

4. Sent by Attorney to U.S. State Department or U.S . Embassy Abroad . . .

5 . Received by U .S. Embassy . . .

6 . Sent to Ministry of Foreign Affairs under cover of a diplomatic note .. .

7 . Sent to foreign Ministry of Justice . ..

8. Sent to by Ministry of Justice Foreign Court of Competent Jurisdiction . . .

9 . Executed by Foreign Court subject to Court's Calender . . .

10. Returned to Ministry of Foreign Affairs .. .

11 . Returned to U.S. Embassy .. .

12 . Returned to U.S. Department of State . . .

13 . Returned to Requesting Court .

14 . Requesting Attorney Receives Evidence from Requesting American Court .

COSTS: Effective March 8, 2005, there is a $735 .00 consular fee for processing letters rogatory(See Federal Register, February 2, 2005, Volume 70, Number 21, Rules and Regulations, Pages5372-5377 ; 22 CFR 22 .1, item 51) . Counsel are requested to submit a certified bank check in theamount of $735 .00 payable to the U.S. Embassy (insert name of capital of the foreign country, forexample, "U.S. Embassy Tokyo") . Corporate or personal checks are not acceptable. Foreignauthorities may also charge a fee . Counsel will be notified by the U .S. embassy and/or the Office ofAmerican Citizens Services and Crisis Management in the Department of State if the Embassy isadvised by foreign authorities of any applicable local fees . There is no consular fee for lettersrogatory on behalf of federal, state or local government officials. (See 22 CFR 22 .1, item 53). If theletter rogatory requests compulsion of evidence from more than one witness or service of process onmore than one person, multiple fees may be charged if more than one foreign court is required toexecute the request due to multiple jurisdictions . For letters rogatory for use in Taiwan, see ourTaiwan specific flyer .

RETAINING LOCAL FOREIGN COUNSEL : 28 U.S.C. 1781(b)(2) permits American courts totransmit letters rogatory directly to the executing authority in the foreign country . Although manycountries require that letters rogatory be transmitted to the foreign government through the"diplomatic channel" by the U.S. embassy, local counsel can be helpful in subsequent inquiries .Where the foreign government does not object to direct transmission, for example through a local



foreign attorney, this can save time . While retention of the services of a foreign attorney to aid in theprogress of a letter rogatory is not generally required (although some countries, such as the Bahamasmandate such assistance), requesting counsel in the U .S. may find it useful to retain local counsel toprovide guidance on preparation of the request and to expedite the process . See Ristau, Sec. 3-3-3, atnote 24, 102 and Sec. 3-3-5, p . 103 (1995 supp .) ; and Born & Westin 308 .

REFUSAL TO HONOR AMERICAN LETTERS ROGATORY: Foreign countries havedeclined to honor American letters rogatory where a foreign domestic blocking statute prohibitsrelease of the evidence requested . See Ristau, Sec . 3-3-4, p . 103 (1995 supp .)

REQUESTS FROM STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS :

If the letter rogatory is being transmitted at the request of a state or federal official, please contact theDepartment of State, Office of American Citizens Services for special guidance . With respect to fees,no consular fee will be charged . However, local authorities in the foreign country may impose fees oftheir own which must be paid by the state or federal authority in the United States requesting thejudicial assistance. You will be contacted if a federal appropriation number and fund code orremittance of monies to the Department of State are necessary.

TIME REQUIRED TO EXECUTE A LETTER ROGATORY : Generally letters rogatoryworldwide, including those sent to the United States, take from six months to a year to execute . SeeRistau, Sec . 3-3-3, p. 102-103 (1995 supp .) ; Born & Westin 307 .

RETURN OF EXECUTED LETTER ROGATORY : When a letter rogatory is executed by theforeign authorities, it is returned to the requesting court in the United States by this office viacertified mail . Requesting counsel is also notified. At the request of the court, the executed letterrogatory and proof of service/evidence can be returned directly to requesting counsel . If transmittalby commercial express delivery service is preferred, please include your account number in thecovering letter.

Treaty Databases on the Internet: Information about treaties in force is available on the Internet atthe following web sites :

United States Department of State, Office of the Legal Adviser, Treaty Affairs List of Treaties andOther International Agreements of the United States In Force :

United Nations (UN): Databases/Treat ies

Council of Europe (COE) : under Texts/Treatie s

Organization of American States (OAS) : under Public Information/Documents/Treaties .

SELECTED REFERENCES :

Books :

Born & Westin, International Civil Litigation in United States Courts, (1989) .

Epstein & Snyder, International Litigation : A Guide to Jurisdiction, Practice and Strategy, 2d,Prentice Hall Law & Business (1994) .

Grossman, Letters Rogatory : A Symposium Before the Consular Law Society, Federal LegalPublications, Inc ., New York (1956) .

Hackworth, Digest of International Law, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State, Vol . II,

http ://travel .state .gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_683 .html?css=print 11/15/2006


(1941) .

Page 9 of 1 2

Kos-Rabcewicz-Zubkowski, International Cooperation in Civil and Commercial Procedure :American Continent, Canadian Inter-American Research Institute ; U. of Ottawa Press, (1975) .

Lookofsky, Transnational Litigation and Commercial Arbitration, A Comparative Analysis ofAmerican, European, and International Law, 445-89 (1992) .

Moore, A Digest of International Law 104 et seq ., Sec . 189 - letters rogatory 1889-1890, (1906) .

Nash, ed., Cumulative Digest of United States Practice in International Law, Department of State,Vol. II, 1409,1424 (1994) .

Ristau, International Judicial Assistance, Civil and Commercial, International Law Institute, (1995supp.) .

Smit, International Cooperation in Litigation: Europe, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff, (1965) .

Whiteman, Digest of International Law, Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State, Vol 7,573, 605 (1970) .

Articles :

Doyle, Taking Evidence by Deposition and Letters Rogatory and Obtaining Documents in ForeignTerritory, Proc. A.B.A., Sec. Intl & Comp . L. 37 (1959) .

Edwards, Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters, 18 Int'l & Comp . L. Q. 646(1969) .

Heilpern, Procuring Evidence Abroad, 14 Rul . L. Rev. 29 (1939) .

Houck, Restatement of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States (Revised) : Issues andResolutions, 20 Int'1 Law . 1361 (1986) .

Jones, International Judicial Assistance : Procedural Chaos and a Program for Reform, 62 Yale L .J .515, 529-32 (1953) .

McCawley, Compelled Production of Documents Located Abroad - Marc Rich and Co . v . U.S., 11Tax Plan. Int'l Rev. 7 (No. 11, Nov. 1984) .

McKay, Compelling Discovery and Disclosure in Transnational Litigation : A Selected Bibliography,16 N.Y.U.J . Int'l L . and Pol . 1217 (No. 5, Summer 1984) .

Maier, Extraterritorial Jurisdiction at a Crossroads: An Intersection Between public and PrivateInternational Law, 76 Am. J. Int'l L. 280 (1982).

Note, Letters Rogatory: Current Problems Facing International Judicial Assistance, 4 N.C. J. Intl L .& Comm. Reg. 297 (1979) .

Note, Reciprocity for Letters Rogatory Under the Judicial Code, 58 Yale L.J. 1193, 1193-94 (1949) .

Note, Taking Evidence Outside of the United States, 55 B .U. L. Rev. 368, 374 (1975) .

Plaster, The Hague Evidence Convention : The Need for Guidance on Procedures and Resolution ofConflicts in International Discovery, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, Vol . 27, No. 1, pp.185-217 (1994) .

http ://travel .state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_683.html?css=print 11/15/2006


Rafalko, Depositions, Commissions and Letters Rogatory in a Conflict of Laws Case (1965), 4Dusquesne University Law Review 115 .

Robinson, Symposia : Transnational Litigation, Part I, Compelling Discovery and Evidence inInternational Litigation, The Int'l Law ., Vol . 18, No . 3, 533 (1984) .

Rosenthal & Yale-Loehr, Two Cheers for the ALI Restatement's Provisions on Foreign Discovery,16 N.Y.U.J. Intl L . & Pol . 1075 (1984) . ;

Sklaver, Obtaining Evidence in International Litigation, 7 Cumberland L . Rev. 233 (1976).

Stem, International Judicial Assistance (Part II : Depositions under Letters Rogatory) (1969), 15Practical Lawyer 55.

Sunderland, The Use of the Letter of Request (or Letter Rogatory) for the Purpose of ObtainingEvidence for Proceedings in England and Abroad, 31 Intl and Comp L . Q. 784 (1982) .

Symposium, Compelling Discovery in Transnational Litigation, 16 N .Y.U.J . Int'1 L . and Pol . 957-1156; 1217-1248 (No . 5, Summer 1984) .

Symposium, Obtaining Foreign Discovery and Evidence for Use in Litigation in the United States,13 Int'l L . 3, 46 (1979) .

Van Brauman, Foreign Evidence Gathering and Discovery for U .S. Civil Tax DeterminationPurposes, 30 Intl Law. 589, 619 (1996) .

Von Mehren, Discovery of Documentary and Other Evidence in a Foreign Country, 77 Am . J . Int'lLaw 896 (1983) .

Von Mehren, Discovery Abroad : The Perspective of the U.S. Private Practitioner, 16 N .Y.U. J. Int'lL. & Pol . 985, 993 (1984) .

Selected Cases :

DBMS Consultants, Ltd . v. Computer Assocs. Int'l, Inc., 131 F.R.D. 367, 369 (D . Mass . 1990); See,United States v . Zabady, 546 F . Supp. 35, 39 n . 9 (M.D. Pa. 1982); Rio Tinto Zinc Corp .V .Westinghouse Elec . Corp., (1978) 2 W.L.R. 81, 1All E.R. 434 (H.L. 1977); Reagan v. United States,453 F.2d 165 (C.A. 6 1971) ; Re Raychem Corp . v. Canusa Coating Sys ., Inc., (1970) 14 D .L.R. 3d684; Zassenhaus v. Evening Star Newspaper Co ., 404 F.2d 1361 (C.A.D.C. 1968); United States v .Paraffin Wax, 2255 Bags, 23 F.R.D. 298 (E.D.N.Y. 1959); Danisch, et al v . The Guardian LifeInsurance Co., 19 F .R.D. 235 (1956) ; Re Radio Corp of America v . Rauland Corp ., (1956) 5 D .L.R .2d 424; Uebersee Finanz-Korporation, A .G. v . Brownell, 121 F . Supp. 420 (D.D.C. 1954); WheelerY . West India S .S. Co., 22 Fed. Rules Decisions 396 (1951); The Edmund Fanning petition ofIsbrandtsen Co., Inc ., 89 Fed. Supp. 282 (1950) ; Ali Akber Kiachif et al . v. Philco InternationalCorporation, 10 F.R.D. 277 (1950) ; The Signe, 37 F . Supp. 819, 820 (E.D. La. 1941); The Mandu,11 F . Supp. 845 (E.D.N.Y. 1935); De Villeneuve v. Morning Journal Ass'n., 206 F.70 (S.D.N.Y.1913) ., Gross v. Palmer t al, C.C.N.D. Ill . 1900, 105 F. 833 ; Nelson v. United States, 17 Fed. Cas .1340 (No. 10 .116) (C .C.D.Pa. 1816); Winthrop v . Union Ins . Co., 30 Fed. Cas. 376 (No. 17901)(C.C.D.Pa. 1807.)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The Office of American Citizens Services has available generalinformation flyers on international judicial assistance .

Using the Internet : These are available on the Internet via the Department of State, Bureau of

http ://travel . state .gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_683 .html?css=print 11/15/2006


Consular Affairs home page under Judicial Assistance . See also, the Department of State, Office ofthe Legal Adviser for Private International Law home page for information regarding privateinternational law unification. See also the home pages for many of our embassies .

QUESTIONS : Additional questions regarding le tters rogato ry should be addressed to theappropriate geographic division of the Office of American Citizens Services, Tel: (202) 647-5225 or(202) 647-5226 .

EXAMPLE - LETTER ROGATORY :

SAMPLE REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANC E

NAME OF COURT IN SENDING STATE REQUESTING JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE

NAME OF PLAINTIFF

DOCKET NUMBER

V.

NAME OF DEFENDANT

REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE (LETTER ROGATORY)

(NAME OF THE REQUESTING COURT) PRESENTS ITS COMPLIMENTS TO THEAPPROPRIATE JUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF (NAME OF RECEIVING STATE), ANDREQUESTS INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE TO (OBTAIN EVIDENCE/EFFECTSERVICE OF PROCESS) TO BE USED IN A (CIVIL, CRIMINAL, ADMINISTRATIVE)PROCEEDING BEFORE THIS COURT IN THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER . A(TRIAL/HEARING) ON THIS MATTER IS SCHEDULED AT PRESENT FOR (DATE) IN(CITY, STATE, COUNTRY).

THIS COURT REQUESTS THE ASSISTANCE DESCRIBED HEREIN AS NECESSARY IN THEINTERESTS OF JUSTICE. THE ASSISTANCE REQUESTED IS THAT THE APPROPRIATEJUDICIAL AUTHORITY OF (NAME OF RECEIVING STATE) (COMPEL THE APPEAR OFTHE BELOW NAMED INDIVIDUALS TO GIVE EVIDENCE/PRODUCE DOCUMENTS)(EFFECT SERVICE OF PROCESS UPON THE BELOW NAMED INDIVIDUALS) .

(NAMES OF WITNESSES/PERSONS TO BE SERVED )

(NATIONALITY OF WITNESSES /PERSONS TO BE SERVED)

(ADDRESSED OF WITNESSES/PERSONS TO BE SERVED)

(DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS OR OTHER EVIDENCE TO BE PRODUCED )

FACTS

(THE FACTS OF THE CASE PENDING BEFORE THE REQUESTING COURT SHOULD BESTATED BRIEFLY HERE, INCLUDING A LIST OF THOSE LAWS OF THE SENDING STATEWHICH GOVERN THE MATTER PENDING BEFORE THE COURT IN THE RECEIVINGSTATE . )

(QUESTIONS)

(IF THE REQUEST IS FOR EVIDENCE, THE QUESTIONS FOR THE WITNESSES SHOULD

http://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_683 .html?css=print 11/15/2006


BE LISTED HERE) .

Page 12 of 12

(LIST ANY SPECIAL RIGHTS OF WITNESSES PURSUANT TO THE LAWS OF THEREQUESTING STATE HERE) .

(LIST ANY SPECIAL METHODS OR PROCEDURES TO BE FOLLOWED) .

(INCLUDE REQUEST FOR NOTIFICATION OF TIME AND PLACE FOR EXAMINATION OFWITNESSES/DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE COURT IN THE RECEIV ING STATE HERE) .

RECIPROCITY

THE REQUESTING COURT SHOULD INCLUDE A STATEMENT EXPRESSING AWILLINGNESS TO PROVIDE SIMILAR ASSISTANCE TO JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES OF THERECEIVING STATE .

REIMBURSEMENT FOR COST S

THE REQUESTING COURT SHOULD INCLUDE A STATEMENT EXPRESSING AWILLINGNESS TO REIMBURSE THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES OF THE RECEIVINGSTATE FOR COSTS INCURRED IN EXECUTING THE REQUESTING COURT'S LETTERROGATORY.

SIGNATURE OF REQUESTING JUDGE

TYPED NAME OF REQUESTING JUDGE

NAME OF REQUESTING COURT

CITY, STATE, COUNTRY

DATE

(SEAL OF COURT)

Return to Judicial Assistance Page

This site is managed by the Bureau of Consular Affairs, U .S. Department of State. External links to other Internet

EM sites should not beconstrued as an endorsement of the views contained therein . Copyright Information Disclaimer s

http://travel . state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_683 .html?css=print 11/15/2006

Exhibit C

b7icy'ab 15 : 24 WILSON SONSINI 4 912136171975

f s -

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich '& RosatiPLLOFESSJONAL COAPORATJON

NO . 222

650 Page M01 Roadpafo Al m, CA 94304-105 0

pF:ONE 650-493.9300FAx 650.493.68 1

sawcs .com

September 29, 2006

V14 FACSIMILE

Jeff S . WestermanMilberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLPOne California Plaz a300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3900Los Angeles, California 9007 1

Re: OmniVision Technologies, Inc . Securities Class Action

Dear Jeff.

I write to confirm our conversation of earlier today. We agreed - :hat we would enter intoa two-week hiatus in the Omni Vision securities class action . The hiatus would encompass allscheduled court dates and all discovery matters, including depositions aid further documentproduction . We also agree with your proviso that if the case is not setthid during the two-weekhiatus, that the Chen deposition be scheduled sufficiently in advance of submission of expertreports in this matter. Finally, we agreed that our respective teams woti .d work together toimplement this agreement and make any necessary court filings.

Very truly yours ,

WILSON SONSIIV7 GOODRICH & ROSATIProfessional Corporatio

C___1 q -

.

Douglas J. C k

DJC/gga

C: Ni?QnbN'AL[B 1\OA1Q 9636 : 9_I .DOC

002

PALO ALTO AUSTIN N$W YOluc RCSYON SALT LAIM CITY SAN OTL+ CO SAN PRANCISCO SrATTLE

09/29/06 16:24 WILSON SONSINI 4 912136171975

W Wilson Sonsini Goodrich .& Rosati-PROFESSIONAL CO-13-ORATION" ~~EP 2 .9 2o06, ;

8y`_

NO.222 901

Date:

To. Jeff S. Westerman Fax: 213 .617.197E

Company: Milberg Weiss Berthed & Schulman LLP Phone : 213.617 .1200

29, 200 6

Q UN tnis faxnumber only

Q Notify recipientbefo re sending

From : Douglas J . Clark Phone: 6501493.9300 Return Fax : 6501565-5100

Original : ❑ To follow via mail ❑ To follow via courier ❑ To follow via email Original will not follow

Fax Contains: 2 pages (including this sheet) . If incomplete , cell 6501461-5351 .

Message :

Ref : 16114.506 Return Original to: G. Grace Arenas Location: BA 2- 1

650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 , 650.493.9300 Tel - 650 .493,6811 Fax • www.wsgr.com

This fax may contain eonfidendal and pduileged material torte sole use of the ki ded raciplenL Any review oralsftutlan by others Is sIdally prohlb!ted.If you are not the intended redplent pie confec t the sender emi desaay all apses.

Enti re Transmission Copyrighto 2003 Mon Sonslnl Goodrich & ResaU. All Rtphl'r Reserved.2963967_1 .DOC (438)

Exhibit D

Case 3:04-cv-02297-SC Document 196 Filed 10/06/2006 Page 1 of 5

DOUGLAS J. CLARK, State Bar No . 171499 ([email protected])JARED L. KOPEL, State Bar No. 126817 (jkopel@wsgr .com)KELLEY E. MOOHR, State Bar No . 216823 ([email protected])CAMERON P . HOFFMAN, State Bar No . 229316 ([email protected])WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATIProfessional Corporation650 Page Mill Roa dPalo Alto, CA 94304-1050Telephone : (650) 493-9300Facsimile : (650) 565-5100

JENNY L. DIXON, State Bar No. 192638 ([email protected])WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSAT IProfessional CorporationOne Market Street , Spear Tower, Suite 3300San Francisco, CA 9410 5Telephone : (415) 947-2000Facsimile : (415) 947-2099

Attorneys for DefendantsOMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC .,SHAW HONG, RAYMOND WU,H. GENE McCOWN and JOHN T . ROSSI



In re OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC . ) MASTER FILE NO . : C-04-2297 SC(JCS)

CLASS ACTION

This Document Relates To : 04-2297-SC (Vince) ;04-2298-SC (Campagnuola) ; 04-2385-SC(Greenfield) ; 04-2410-SC (Paul Lee AssociatesLLC) ; 04-2419-SC (McMillan) ; 04-2425-SC(Cheung) ; 04-2433-SC (Gamero) ; 04-2474-SC(Van Waay) ; 04-2514-SC (Glantz) ; 04-2525-SC(Starr) ; 04-2570-SC (Jewell) ; and 04-4350-SC(Schroeder) .

STIPULATION AND ORDER RESCHEDULED COURT DATES ANDDISCOVERY MATTER S

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE COURTDATES AND DISCOVERY MATTERSMASTER FILE NO. : C-04-2297 SC (JCS)

-7946100 .doc

Case 3 :04-cv-02297-SC Document 196 Filed 10/06/2006 Page 2 of 5

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, the parties have agreed that discussions concerning possible settlement have

reached a point whereby it is in the parties' best interests to defer upcoming scheduled cour t

dates and discovery matters for a two week period ending on October 13, 2006;

WHEREAS, the parties hereby agree that Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certificatio n

and Motion to Withdraw Plaintiff Anthony P. Broccoli as Lead Plaintiff, currently scheduled for

hearing on October 13, 2006 shall be continued to November 17, 2006 at 10 :00 a.m., and the

parties jointly request that the Court defer ruling on these motions until the rescheduled date;

WHEREAS, the time for Defendants to file their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion fo r

Letter of Request for International Judicial Assistance shall be extended as the parties may agree ;

WHEREAS, the parties agree that all depositions scheduled between October 2, 2006 and

October 13, 2006 shall be rescheduled for mutually agreeable dates, if necessary, after Octobe r

16, 2006 ;

WHEREAS , the parties agree that the remaining portion of Defendants' electroni c

document production, consisting of privileged, redacted, and unviewable material, shall be

deferred until after October 13, 2006 ; and

WHEREAS, the parties agree that the deadlines for exchange of expert reports will b e

deferred to mutually agreeable dates, with the understanding that the deposition of Gary Che n

will be scheduled sufficiently in advance of submission of expert reports in this matter .

NOW THEREFORE, the parties to this action, by and through their attorneys, hereby

STIPULATE AND AGREE that upcoming scheduled court dates and discovery matters be

deferred for a two week period ending on October 13, 2006 .

Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Motion to Withdraw Plaintif f

Anthony P . Broccoli as Lead Plaintiff shall be continued, subject to Court approval, to

November 17, 2006 at 10 :00 a .m . ;

2. The time for Defendants to file their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Letter o f

Request for International Judicial Assist ance shall be extended as the parties may agree ; and

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE COURT -1- -79461 OO.doc

DATES AND DISCOVERY MATTERSMASTER FILE NO . : C-04-2297 SC (JCS)


Discovery matters, including depositions, document production, and the exchang e

of expert reports shall be continued to mutually agreeable dates to commence after October 16 ,

2006 .

Dated: October 4, 200 6

Dated: October 4, 2006

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATIProfessional Corporation

By: /s/ Jenny L . DixonJENNY L . DIXON

Attorneys for Defendants OMNNISIONTECHNOLOGIES, INC ., SHAW HONG,RAYMOND WU, H. GENE McCOWN andJOHN T. ROSSI

MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD &SCHULMAN LLP

By : /s/ Jeff S . WestermanJEFF S . WESTERMAN

355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4170Los Angeles, CA 90071Telephone: (213) 617-1200Facsimile : (213) 617-1975


STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE COURT -2- -7946100 .docDATES AND DISCOVERY MATTERSMASTER FILENO . : C-04-2297 SC (JCS)


Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court hereby orders that the upcoming schedule d

court dates and discovery matters be deferred for a two week period ending on October 13, 2006 .

1 . Lead Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Motion to Withdraw Plaintif f

Anthony P. Broccoli as Lead Plaintiff shall be continued to November 17, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. or

such date and time that the Court deems appropriate .

2. The time for Defendants to file their Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Letter o f

Request for International Judicial Assistance shall be extended as the parties may agree.

3 . Discovery matters, including depositions, document production, and the exchange

of expert reports shall be continued to mutually agreeable dates to commence after October 16 ,

2006. Subject to #1 below .

IT IS SO ORDERED .

Dated : October 6, 200 6

#1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the following dates remain in effect : February 16, 2007 -

Last Date Motions Will Be Heard ; March 2, 2007 - Pretrial Conference ; and March 19, 2007 -

Trial .

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE COURT _3_ -7946100 .doc



I, Jenny L. Dixon , am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to fi le thi s

Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Moving Trial Setting Conference. In compliance with General

Order 45 .X.B, I hereby attest that Jeff S . Westerman has concurred in this filing.

Dated : October 4, 2006 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATIProfessional Corporation

By: /s/ Jenny L . DixonJenny L. Dixon

Attorneys for Defendants

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE COURT -4- -7946100.doc



DOUGLAS J. CLARK, State Bar No . 171499 (dclark@wsgr .com)JARED L. KOPEL, State Bar No . 126817 ([email protected])KELLEY E. MOOHR, State Bar No . 216823 (kmoohr@wsgr .com)CAMERON P . HOFFMAN, State Bar No. 229316 (choffman@wsgr .com)WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATIProfessional Corporation650 Page Mill Roa dPalo Alto, CA 94304-1050Telephone : (650) 493-9300Facsimile : (650) 565-5100

JENNY L. DIXON, State Bar No . 192638 (jldixon@wsgr .com)WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATIProfessional CorporationOne Market Street, Spear Tower, Suite 3300San Francisco , CA 9410 5Telephone : (415) 947-2000Facsimile : (415) 947-209 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Attorneys for DefendantsOMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,SHAW HONG, RAYMOND WU,H. GENE McCOWN and JOHN T . ROSSI


NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNI A

In re OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC . MASTER FILE NO .: C-04-2297 SC(JCS)

CLASS ACTION

This Document Relates To : 04-2297-SC (Vince) ; )04-2298-SC (Campagnuola); 04-2385-SC )(Greenfield) ; 04-2410-SC (Paul Lee Associates )LLC) ; 04-2419-SC (McMillan) ; 04-2425-SC )(Cheung) ; 04-2433-SC (Gamero) ; 04-2474-SC )(Van Waay) ; 04-2514-SC (Glantz) ; 04-2525-SC )(Starr); 04-2570-SC (Jewell) ; and 04-4350-SC )(Schroeder) . )

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONT . OFPLTFS.' MOT. FOR LETTER OF REQUESTMASTER FILE NO . : C-04-2297 SC (JCS)

STIPULATION AND 1PROPOSED]ORDER RE CONTINUANCE OFPLAINTIFFS' MOTION FORLETTER OF REQUEST FORINTERNATIONAL JUDICIALASSISTANCE

2978678_I .DOC


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13 1

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION

WHEREAS, the parties continue to discuss a possible settlement ;

WHEREAS, the parties hereby agree that Plaintiffs' Motion for Letter of Request for

International Judicial Assistance Motion for Class Certification, currently scheduled for hearing

on November 17, 2006 at 10:00 a .m., shall be continued to December 1, 2006 at 10:00 a .m.; and

WHEREAS, the parties understand that, pursuant to the Court's Order dated October 6,

2006, said continuance will not impact the following dates : February 16, 2007-- Last Date

Motions Will Be Heard; March 2, 2007 - Pretrial Conference ; and March 19, 2007 -- Trial .

NOW THEREFORE, the parties to this action, by and through their attorneys, hereby

STIPULATE AND AGREE that :

1 . Plaintiffs' Motion for Letter of Request for International Judicial Assistance shall

be continued, subject to Court approval, to December 1, 2006 at 10 :00 a .m .

Dated: October 26, 2006 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATIProfessional Corporation


STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONT . OFPLTFS.' MOT. FOR LETTER OF REQUESTMASTER FILE NO . : C-04-2297 SC (JCS)

By: /s/ Jenny L . DixonJENNY L. DIXON

Attorneys for Defendants OMNIVISIONTECHNOLOGIES, INC ., SHAW HONG,RAYMOND WU, H. GENE McCOWN andJOHN T. ROSSI

MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD &SCHULMAN LLP

By : /s/ Cheryl WilliamsCHERYL WILLIAM S

355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4170Los Angeles, CA 90071Telephone: (213) 617-1200Facsimile : (213) 617-1975


-1- 2978678_I .DOC


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

1 6

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSW ORDER

Pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court hereby orders that Plaintiffs' Motion for

Letter of Request for International Judicial Assistance shall be continued to December 1, 2006 at

10:00 a.m. or such date and time that the Court deems appropriate .

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT said continuance will not impact the following

scheduled dates : February 16, 2007-- Last Date Motions Will Be Heard ; March 2, 2007 - Pretrial

Conference; and March 19, 2007 - Trial .

IT IS SO ORDERED .


STIPULATION & [ PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONT. OF -2-PLTFS .' MOT. FOR LETTER OF REQUESTMASTER FILE NO . : C-04-2297 SC (JCS)

2978678_1 .DOC


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I, Jenny L. Dixon, am the ECF User whose identification and password are being used to

file this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Moving Trial Setting Conference . In compliance with

General Order 45.X.B, I hereby attest that Cheryl Williams has concurred in this filing .

Dated: October 26, 2006 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATIProfessional Corporation

By : /s/ Jenny L . DixonJenny L. Dixon

Attorneys for Defendants

STIPULATION & [PROPOSED] ORDER RE CONT. OFPLTFS .' MOT. FOR LETTER OF REQUEST

MASTER FILE NO. : C-04-2297 SC (JCS)

-3- 2978678_1 .DOC

Exhibit E

it

Page 1



In re OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC .

This Document Relates To: ) Master File

04-2297-SC (Vince) ; ) No. C-04-2297 SC

04-2298-SC (Campagnuola) ; ) VOLUME I

04-2385-SC (Greenfield) ;

04-2410-SC (Paul Lee Associates LLC) ;

04-2419-SC (McMillan) ;

04-2425-SC (Cheung) ;

04-2433-SC (Gamero) ;

04-2474-SC (Van Waay) ;

04-2514-SC (Glantz) ;

04-2525-SC (Starr) ;

04-2570-SC (Jewell) ; and

04-4350-SC (Schroeder) .

DEPOSITION OF JOANNA KWOK

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 30, 200 6

PAGES 1 - 92

Veritext Court Reporting Services213 623-5005

7396e039-b9b3-4b80-8caa-a0cc94687881

1 World Peace to their end customers? 12 A. Yes, if we are talking about the portion of 23 sold . Yes. 34 Q. And when you described the inventory and 45 salesout reports you received from World Peace, did 56 you usually receive those two reports together at the 67 same time or separately? 78 A. Same time . 89 Q. And generally what time of the month would 9

10 you receive these reports? 1 0

11 A. Usually it's at the first few days of the 1 112 month . 1 2

13 Q. So the first few days of the month you 1 314 received the reports for the prior month that just 1 415 passed? 1 516 A. Yes . 1 6

17 Q. Did you ever receive these reports before 1 718 the end of the month for which the reports were 1 819 about? 1 9

20 A. No . 2 021 Q. Now, do you know if anyone at Omni Vision, 2 122 including yourself, ever received preliminary reports 2 223 from OmniVision prior to receiving the final 2 324 versions? 2 425 A. I don't quite understand . 2 5

Page 2 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Q. For example, did you ever receive a draftversion of the reports and then later receive a finalversion?

A. It should be no.Q. Do you ever recall times where World Peace

had to adjust or change their reports ?MR. KOPEL: I'm going to object on the

grounds that the reference to the terms "change oradjust" in this context is vague and ambiguous.

BY MS . WILLIAMS :Q . If you understand the question, you can

answer.A . Would you please repeat the question ?Q. After receiving a report from World Peace,

do you ever recall a time where World Peace had tochange or adjust that report and send you a secondversion?

A. I would not ask them to do anything.Q . But do you recall if they ever did send a

second version, an edited version, whether you askedthem to or not?

A. They would.Q . Do you recall how often this might happen?A. I don't recall .Q . Would it happen every month?

Page 24

A. No.Q . Would you say it would happen at least

several times a year?A. I would say maybe two, three times or so .Q . Two or three times a year?A. I cannot be sure of the exact figure, but

it did happen.Q . Okay. Pm not asking you to be sure. I'm

just asking you to give me your best estimate.A . I would say, in general, maybe two or three

times .Q. A year?

A. Yes.Q. Thank you.

To your knowledge, did anyone else atOmniVision ever ask World Peace to revise or correcta salesout report or an inventory report?

A. I don't know .Q. Can you describe for me what the purpose is

of the deferred income report?A. The purpose for that report is to look at

how much was sold and how much was still on hand .MS. WILLIAMS : Okay. I'm going to have you

look at some of these reports we've been discussingand go over them with me. I apologize in advance

Page 2 5

1 because this will be very tedious and boring.2 Now, originally I had these inventory

3 reports and salesout reports as separate exhibits .4 But in the interest of making things a littl e5 quicker, I think I'm going to put them together as6 one exhibit, as long as no one has any objections .7 THE WITNESS: Okay. That's fine .8 MS. WILLIAMS : Okay. This is Exhibit 1 ,9 OrnniVision inventory report and salesout and credit

10 report from WPI for the month of May'03 .11 MR. KOPEL: What number are you marking it?12 Well, have there been prior exhibits ?13 MS. WILLIAMS : I think there were three or14 four. We can start at 5, then .15 MR. KOPEL: Yes . They should be numbered16 consecutively.17 (Whereupon, Exhibit 5 was marked for18 identification .)19 MS. WILLIAMS : All Tight . Exhibit 6 is20 going to be the deferred income from WPI report,21 commission report and WPI inventory adjustment, and22 that's Bates number OMNI-SE0002455 to 2459 .23 (Whereupon, Exhibit 6 was marked for24 identification .)25 MS. WILLIAMS : If you could take a moment

7 (Pages 22 to 25 )

Veritext Court Reporting Services213 623-5005

7396e039-b9b3-4b80-8caa-a0cc94687881

Exhibit F

- 42(M) -

ANNEX

Model for Letters of Request recommended for use in applying theHague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad

in Civil or ComnerciaZ Matters

Request for International Judicial Assistance pursuant tothe Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence

Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters

N.B. Under the first paragraph of article 4, the Letter of Requestshall be in the language of the authority requested to execute it or beaccompanied by a translation into that language. However, theprovisions of the second and third paragraphs may permit use ofEnglish, French or another language .

In order to avoid confusion, please spell out the nine of the monthin each date .

Please fill out an original and one copy of this form (use additionalspace if required) .

1 Sender . . . . . . (identity and address) . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 Central Authority of . . . . . . (identity and address) . . . . . .

the Requested State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 Person to whom the . . . . . . (identity and address) . . . . . .executed request is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .to be returned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 Specification of the date by which the requesting authority requires

receipt of the response to the Letter of Reques t

Date . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Reason for urgency* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IN CONFORMITY WITH ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION , THE UNDERSIGNED

APPLICANT HAS THE HONOUR TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING REQUEST :

5 a Requesting judicial . . . . . (identity and address) . . . . . .

authority (article 3,a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

b To the competent . . . . . . . .(the requested State) . . . . . . . .authority of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(article 3, a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

e Name of the case . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .and any identifying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Omit if not applicable .No 1 (September 1986)

- 42(N) -

6 Names and addresses of the

parties and their representa-

tives (including representa-

tives in the requested State*)(article 3,b )

a Plaintiff . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Representatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

b Defendant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


C Other parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


7 a Nature of the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .proceedings (divorce, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .paternity, . breach of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .contract, product . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .liability, etc .) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(article 3,c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

b Summary of complaint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

a Summary of defence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .and counterclaim* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .

d Other necessary informs- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .tion or documents* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

* Omit if not applicable .

8o 1 (September 1986)

- 42(0) -

8 a Evidence to be obtained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

or other judicial act to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

be performed(article 3,d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

b Purpose of the evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .or judicial act sought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

9 Identity and address of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .any person to be examined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(article 3 ,e)* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10 Questions to be put to the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .persons to be examined or . . . . (or see attached Ziet) . . . . . . .statement of the subject- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .matter about which they are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .to be examined (article 3,f) *

11 Documents or other property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

to be inspected . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(article 3,g)* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 Any requirement that the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .evidence be given on oath (In -the event that the evidence can-or affirmation and any not be taken in the mnner requested,special form to be used specify whether it is to be taken in(article 3,h)* such ,r nner as provided by local Lars

for the forrtZ taking of evidence) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13 Special methods or procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .to be followed (e .g. oral or (In the event that the evidence can-in writing, verbatim, not be taken in the manner requested,transcript or summary, specify whether it is to be taken incross-examination, etc .) such manner as provided by local Zaw)(articles 3,i and 9)* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 Request for notification of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .the time and place for the . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .execution of the Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .and identity and address of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .any person to be notified . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(article 7) *

15 Request for attendance or . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .participation of judicial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .personnel of the requesting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .authority at the execution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .of the Letter of Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(article 8) *

16 Specification of privilege . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .or duty to refuse to give . (attach copies of relevant laneevidence under the law of or regulations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .the State of origin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(article it, b) *

* Omit if not applicable . ,

No 1 (September 1986)

- 42(P) -

17 The fees and costs incurred . . . . (identity and address) . . . . . .which are reimbursable under . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .the second paragraph of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .article 14 or under . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .article 26 of the Convention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .will be borne by *

DATE OF REQUEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

SIGNATURE AND SEAL OF THE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

REQUESTING AUTHORITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Omit if not applicable .

No 1 (September 1986)

Exhibit G

Hong Kong Judicial Assistanc e

Wednesday November 15, 200 6

Hong Kong Judicial Assistance

Page 1 of6

DISCLAIMER: THE INFORMATION IN THIS CIRCULAR RELATING TO THE LEGALREQUIREMENTS OF SPECIFIC FOREIGN COUNTRIES IS PROVIDED FOR GENERALINFORMATION ONLY AND MAY NOT BE TOTALLY ACCURATE IN A PARTICULARCASE. QUESTIONS INVOLVING INTERPRETATION OF SPECIFIC FOREIGN LAWSSHOULD BE ADDRESSED TO FOREIGN COUNSEL .

PROVISO : This flyer seeks only to provide information ; it is not an opinion on any aspect ofU .S., foreign, or international law . The U .S . Department of State does not intend by thecontents of this flyer to take a position on any aspect of any pending litigation .

Note: Hong Kong became a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People"sRepublic of China on July 1, 1997 in accordance with the 1984 Sino-British JointDeclaration. The People "s Republic of China has advised the United States that theHague Service Convention , the Hague Evidence Convention and the HagueLegalization Convention remain in effect for Hong Kong and that the Hong KongCentral Authorities continue to be located in Hong Kong. Moreover, as noted below,Hong Kong Cen tral Authorities continue to accept document submitted in Englishand do not require a Chinese translation of documents submitted under the HagueService or Evidence Conventions. Should any changes develop over time, theDepartment of State will update this information .

Service of Proces s

Hong Kong and the United States are parties to the Hague Convention on the ServiceAbroad of Judicial and Extra-Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters (20 U.S.T.361, T.I .A.S. 6638 ; 28 U .S.C.A. (Appendix following Rule 4 FRCvP) ; 16 I .L .M . 1339 (1977)) .The Hague Service Convention provides for service by international registered mail, byagent and by formal request to the foreign central authority . (See Rule 4(0(1) F.R.Cv. P.)For a detailed discussion of the operation of the Hague Service Convention, consult ourflyer on the Convention (See "Additional Information" below) . Service can be effected inHong Kong under the Convention through the Hong Kong Central Authority . A request forservice by the Central Authority can be made by an attorney by submitting the documentsto be served under cover of form USM-94, in duplicate to the foreign central authority ." TheConvention form (USM-94) is available at the office of any United States Marshal and isreprinted in the Martindale Hubbell Law Directory, Law Digest Volume, SelectedInternational Conventions, after the text of the Hague Service Convention .

HONG KONG CENTRAL AUTHORITY : The Chief Secretary for Administration of HongKong SAR, Central Government Offices, Lower Albert Road, Hong Kong, tel : (011)(852)2810-2954; fax: (011)(852) 2877-0802 .

TRANSLATIONS : The Hong Kong Central Authority has informed the Hague Conferencefor Private International Law that all documents forwarded to them for service under theprovisions of the Convention must be in duplicate and must be written in or translated intoEnglish . No Chinese translation is required.

U .S. CENTRAL AUTHORITY: Office of International Judicial Assistance, Civil Division,Department of Justice, 1100 L St ., N .W., Room 11006, Washington, D .C. 20530, tel : 202)


Hong Kong Judicial Assistance

307-0983; fax : (202) 514-6584 .

Page 2 of6

COSTS: There are generally no costs incurred in connection with service through thecentral authority under the Convention .

METHODS OF SERVICE : Article 5(b) - Personal Service : If personal service is required,strike out methods (a) and (c) on the Request for Service form (USM-94) and indicatemethod (b) on the form, noting that the documents should be served personally upon theperson or company to be served .

COMPLETING THE USM-94 FORM : To obtain guidance on completing the USM-94 form,consult our general flyer on the Hague Service Convention .

TRANSMITTING THE COMPLETED REQUEST: The completed request form anddocuments to be served, (two copies of each), should be mailed by requesting counsel asthe "applicant" directly to the foreign Central Authority as provided by Article 3 of theConvention . See our flyer, Hague Serv ice Convention , for details regarding completion andtransmittal of the forms and accompanying documents .

OTHER METHODS : Hong Kong did not make any reservations with respect to service byinternational registered mail or service by agent. However, Hong Kong advises that serviceby the Convention is the preferred method.

OBTAINING EVIDENC E

APPLICABLE TREATIES OR OTHER AGREEMENTS : The Vienna Convention onConsular Relations, 21 UST 77 ; 596 UNTS 261 ; TIAS 6820 (Article 5) ; the agreementbetween the United States and the People"s Republic of China regarding the maintenanceof the U .S. Consulate General in Hong Kong signed between the United States and Chinain March 1997; and the Hague Convention on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil andCommercial Matters, 28 USCA 1781 (1980 Cumulative Suppl) and 23 UST 2555 ; TIAS7444. See also the law digest volume of the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory underselected international conventions . Articles 15-16 of the Hague Evidence Conventionprovide for the taking of evidence of willing witnesses by diplomatic and consular officers .

DEPOSITIONS OF WILLING WITNESSES : Depositions of willing witnesses abroad maybe taken on notice or pursuant to a commission before any consul or vice consul of theUnited States at Hong Kong (22 U .S.C . 4215 ; 4221 ; 18 U.S.C., Appendix, Rules of CriminalProcedure, Rules 15 and 17 ; 28 U .S.C ., Appendix, Rules of Civil Procedure, Rules 28-31 .)In Hong Kong, most voluntary depositions are taken in hotels and offices and do not involveparticipation by the U.S. consular officer . Telephone depositions are permitted .

SCHEDULING A DEPOSITION AT THE U .S. CONSULATE GENERAL: Services of theU .S. consular officer in connection with oral depositions or depositions on written questionsmust be scheduled in advance directly with the U .S . Consulate General . Contact theAmerican Citizens Services section of the Consular Section of the U .S . Consulate Generalin Hong Kong via phone or fax as provided below. If the services of a U .S. consular officerare required to administer oaths to the witnesses, stenographer and any interpreter outsidethe Consulate General, additional fees are charged for such services . Consult the Office ofAmerican Citizens Service"s general flyer Obtaining Evidence Abroad . Commercialstenographer and interpreter services are widely available in Hong Kong . Consult the U .S.


Hong Kong Judicial Assistanc e

Consulate General for additional information .

Page 3 of6

HOST COUNTRY CLEARANCE - PARTICIPATION OF LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERALGOVERNMENT OFFICIALS FROM THE UNITED STATES : If a local, state, or federalgovernment official from the United States intends to participate in the voluntary depositionof a willing witness in Hong Kong, formal host country/U.S . Consulate General clearance isrequired . This can be obtained by contacting the Office of American Citizens Services . Therequest should be made at least ten days prior to the taking of the deposition to allowsufficient time for Hong Kong authorities to make a determination about the official travel .

COMPULSION OF TESTIMONY, DOCUMENTARY OR PHYSICAL EVIDENCE : Ifcompulsion of evidence is required, in civil, commercial, and some administrative cases(considered by foreign Central Authority on a case by case basis) the Hague EvidenceConvention provides a "Model Letter of Request" which should be transmitted, in duplicate,directly from the court in the United States seeking assistance to the Hong Kong CentralAuthority . In cases not governed by the Hague Convention, letters rogatory may be used .Consult our general flyer, Preparation of Letters Rogatory_ . See note below regardingcriminal cases .

HONG KONG CENTRAL AUTHORITY: The Hong Kong Central Authority for requestsunder the Hague Evidence Convention is the Chief Secretary for Administration of HongKong SAR, Central Government Offices, Lower Albert Road, Hong Kong, tel : (011) (852)8102954. Under the Hague Evidence Convention, the requesting court in the United Statestransmits the model letter of request, and accompanying documents, in duplicate, directly tothe foreign central authority .

TRANSLATIONS : The Hong Kong Central Authority has advised the Hague Conference onPrivate International Law that requests for compulsion of evidence under the provisions ofthe Convention must be submitted in duplicate and must be written in or translated into theEnglish language . No Chinese translation is required.

TRANSMITTAL OF A REQUEST: Under Section 75 of the Hong Kong Evidence Ordinanceand Part VIII of Rule 70 of the Rules of the Supreme Court, the letter of request is sentdirectly from the American court to the Hong Kong Central Authority for the Convention, theChief Secretary for Administration of Hong Kong SAR .

APPLICATION TO THE HONG KONG COURT : The Hong Kong judicial authority will hearan application for assistance, under Section 75 of the Evidence Ordinance, and has thepower to render assistance to a foreign court to obtain evidence by compulsion in HongKong for civil proceedings in that court . This application can be made directly in a motion tothe court by a Hong Kong counsel or indirectly, pursuant to a letter of request under theHague Evidence Convention . If application is made directly by local Hong Kong counsel,rather than in the form of a model letter of request from the American court to the HongKong central authority, the application must be made ex parte and must be supported by anaffidavit made in Hong Kong to which the application is attached . The accompanyingaffidavit should give evidence in support of the request, name the examiner, and state thathe or she is a fit and proper person . It should also state any ancillary arrangementsenvisaged .

APPOINTMENT OF AN EXAMINER /PARTICIPATION OF AMERICAN COUNSEL : In civilproceedings an examiner is appointed by the Hong Kong court . That examiner is usually amember of the local bar association . Examination may or may not take place in the court . I f


Hong Kong Judicial Assistance Page 4 of 6

outside the court, the examiner has complete discretion whether or not to allow theAmerican attorney to question the witness . If the examination takes place in a court, anAmerican attorney would not be allowed to question the witness . The degree ofparticipation by an American attorney in an examination of a witness held outside the courtis up to the examiner. However, if the Hong Kong court declined to authorize the examinerof choice, and ordered that the matter be heard before a Hong Kong authority, it is ourunderstanding that direct examination by American counsel would not be possible . Inside aHong Kong court, the American attorney could be allowed to attend if permission wasobtained from the Hong Kong judicial authority in advance . If in attendance, an Americanattorney would be allowed to take notes and to consult to the extent of whispering orpassing notes to local counsel if this had been agreed to by that counsel in advance and solong as no disturbance of the court was created .

PRE-CONDITIONS BEFORE THE HIGH COURT WILL CONSIDER A CASE : Threeconditions generally must be fulfilled before the Hong Kong court can exercise thejurisdiction conferred upon it to make any order under the Evidence Order . (However, itmay still be worth attempting a request even if all conditions are not met since cases aredetermined on a case-by-case basis . )

GENERAL REQUIREMENTS:

1 . There must be an application to the court (in Hong Kong) for an order for evidence to beobtained in Hong Kong ;

2. The Hong Kong court must be satisfied that the application is made in pursuance of arequest by or on behalf of a court, described as "the requesting court" exercising jurisdictionoutside Hong Kong ;

3. The Hong Kong court must be satisfied that the evidence requested will be obtained forthe purposes of civil proceedings which either have been instituted before the requestingcourt or where institution before that court is contemplated.

GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING THE LETTER OF REQUEST FOR USE INHONG KONG :

The letter of request should at a minimum contain references to the following matters :

1 . The nature of the proceedings pending or contemplated in the United States ;

2. In the case of civil proceedings, a statement that proceedings have been instituted or thatthey are contemplated ;

3. A statement that any particular witnesses" evidence is required for that proceeding and isrelevant to that proceeding ;

4. The name of any witnesses to be called to be examined ;

5. Details of the documents to be produced .

Requesting American counsel may wish to include in the letter of request that they bepermitted to participate in proceedings in Hong Kong . It is wise, however, to include otheroptions, such as permission for local Hong Kong counsel representing the plaintiff and thedefendant to participate in the questioning of the witness, should the Hong Kong judgedecide that American attorneys not be permitted to participate directly . Finally, the letter of



request generally includes specific written interrogatories and cross-interrogatories whichthe Hong Kong judge can put to the witnesses, should the judge determine that counsel forplaintiff and defendant not be permitted to participate, either directly or through designatedlocal counsel and that all questions should be posed by the judge .

CRIMINAL CASES : Prior to July 1, 1997, the United States negotiated an agreement onMutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (MLAT) with Hong Kong authorities, with theconcurrence of authorities of the People"s Republic of China that such an agreement couldbe reached with Hong Kong S.A.R. authorities to apply only to Hong Kong . The U.S.- HongKong agreement on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters came into effect onJanuary 21, 2000 . For information about Mutual Legal Assistance Agreements, contact theOffice of International Affairs, Criminal Division, Department of Justice, Washington D .C.20530, tel : (202) 514-0015, or the Office of the Legal Adviser, Department of State, LawEnforcement and Intelligence (ULEI), Washington D .C. 20520, tel : (202) 647-5111 .Defense counsel cannot utilize mechanisms provided for under MLAT agreements, andthus must follow the formal letter rogatory procedure outlined in our general flyer,Preparation of Letters Rogatory .

LISTS OF FOREIGN ATTORNEYS : Lists of foreign attorneys willing to represent U .S.citizens have been prepared by the American Consulate General in Hong Kong . Copiesmay be obtained from the Department of State, Office of American Citizens or directly fromthe U .S . Consulate General in Hong Kong .

AUTHENTICATION OF DOCUMENTS : Hong Kong remains a pa rty to the HagueConvention Abolishing the Requirement for Legalization of Foreign Public Documents(TIAS 10072 ; 527 UNTS 189 ; 20 Int"I Legal Materials 1405-1419 (1981 ) .) The Hong Kongcompetent authority to issue ce rtifications pursuant to the Convention , (known as "apostille"certificates ) remains the Registrar, Hong Kong High Cou rt; Deputy Registrar or AssistantRegistrar, High Cou rt , Hong Kong, 38 Queensway, Hong Kong, tel : (852) 2825-4226, fax:(852) 2869-0640 . For an explanation of how the process works in Hong Kong, see the U .S .Consulate General home page (http://www . usconsulate .org.hk) under American CitizensServices , Notarials . See also our general flyer on "International Judicial Assistance , NotarialServices and Authentication of Documents" under Judicial Assistance . See also our generalflyer on the Hague Legalization Convention . But see the State Depa rtment Authentication sOffice home paa e .

U.S. CONSULATE GENERAL LOCATION : The U .S. Consulate General is located at 26Garden Road, Central, Hong Kong . The mailing address is PSC 461, Box 5, FPO AP96521-0006; tel : (011)(852) 2523-9011, fax : (011)(852) 2845-4845, web site :http ://www.usconsulate.org .hk, e-mail : acshnk@netvigator .com"

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION : The Office of American Citizens Services has availablegeneral information flyers on international judicial assistance . These topics include :

Preparation of Letters RogatoryObtaining Evidence AbroadService of Process AbroadAuthentication of Documents

Using the Internet : Many of our judicial assistance flyers are also available on the Internet

http ://travel.state.gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_650 .html?css=print 11/15/2006


via the Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs home page under JudicialAssistance .

TREATY DATABASES ON THE INTERNET:

United States Department of State , Office of the Leal Adviser. Treat C Affa irs. List ofTreaties and Other International Agreements of the United States In Force :http://www .state.gov/www/global/legal_affairs/tifindex.html .

United Nations (UN) : Databases/Treaties at http://untreaty.un.org ;

Council of Europe (COE) under Texts/Treaties , COE press releases including treatyaction ;

Organization of American States (OAS ). .

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS : If you have further questions, contact the East Asia andPacific Division of the Office of American Citizens Services, CA/OCS/ACS/EAP,Department of State, Room 4817 N .S., Washington, D .C. 20520, tel : (202) 647-6769; 202-647-5226 ; fax: 202-647-2835 .

Return to Judicial Assistance Pale

This site is managed by the Bureau of Consular Affairs, U .S . Department of State. External links to other Internetw sites should not beconstrued as an endorsement of the views contained therein . Copyright Information Disclaimers

http://travel .state .gov/law/info/judicial/judicial_650 .html?css-print 11/15/2006

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

DECLARATION OF SERVICE BY MAIL

I, the undersigned , declare :

1 . That declarant is and was, at all times herein mentioned , I am employed in the County

of Los Angeles , over the age of 18 years, and not a par ty to or interest in the within action; that

declarant 's business address is One California Plaza, 300 South Grand Avenue , Suite 3900, Los

Angeles , Califo rnia 90071 .

2. That on November 17, 2006, declarant served the DECLARATION OF CHERYL A .

WILLIAMS IN SUPPORT OF REPLY MEMORANDUM RE LETTER OF REQUEST FOR

INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION

OF 18 MARCH 1970 ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE ABROAD IN CIVIL OR

COMMERCIAL MATTERS by depositing a true copy thereof in a United States mailbox at Los

Angeles, California in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid and addressed to the

parties listed on the attached Service List .

3 . That there is a regular communication by mail between the place of mailing and the

places so addressed .

4. That on the above date, declarant served via e-mail to : [email protected] .

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct . Executed this 17th

day of November, 2006 , at Los Angeles, California .

/s/ Faith FarinaFAITH FARINA

IIWILLIAMS

DECL INSUPP OF REPLY MEMO RE LETTER REQUEST

3-CASE NO. C-04-2297 S11 DOCS\384484v1

OMNIVISION

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

1 2

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SERVICE LIST

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Jeff S . WestermanCheryl A. WilliamsMichiyo Michelle FurukawaMilberg Weiss Bershad

& Schulman LLPOne California Plaz a300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 3900Los Angeles, CA 90071Telephone: (213) 617-1200Facsimile : (213) 617-197 5

Daniel C . GirardJonathan K. LevineAaron M. SheaninGirard Gibbs LLP601 California Street, Suite 1400San Francisco, CA 94108Telephone : (415) 981-4800Facsimile : (415) 981-4846

Eric T. ChaffinRick M . BarrecaSeeger Weiss LLPOne William StreetNew York, NY 10004Telephone: (212) 584-0700Facsimile: (212) 584-0799

Charles J . PivenBROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONALASSOCIATIONThe World Trade Center-Baltimore401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525Baltimore, Maryland 21202Telephone: (410) 332-0030Facsimile : (410) 685-1300

Thomas J. McKennaGainey & McKenna295 Madison AvenueFourth FloorNew York, NY 10017Telephone : (212) 983-1300Facsimile : (212) 983-0383

Counsel for Defendants

Jenny L. DixonWilson Sonsini Goodrich & RosatiOne Market, Spear Tower, Suite 3300San Francisco, CA 94105Telephone : (415) 947-2000Facsimile : (415) 947-2099

Douglas J . ClarkJared L. KopelCameron P. HoffmanKelley E. MoohrWilson Sonsini Goodrich

& Rosati650 Page Mill RoadPalo Alto, CA 94304-1050Telephone : (650) 493-9300Facsimile : (650) 493-681 1

Attorney for Omnivision Technologies, Inc .,Shaw Hong, John T Rossi, H. Gene McCown,and Raymond Wu .

II WILLIAMS DECL IN SUPP OF REPLY MEMO RE LETTER REQUEST - 4 -CASE NO . C-04-2297 SCDOCS\ 384484v1