Hynix v Rambus - 10/18/05 - Part VI

Development of the record retention policy occurred concurrent with the development of the licensing / litigation strategy. Included in the one and two page “new term action” plans and reports for RMBS were bullet points:

Document retention policy
Discovery data file
Organize outside counsel’s files

A document retention policy was developed and as a result, infamous Shred Day 1 occurred on September 3, 1998. Approximately 185 gunny sacks and 60 boxes of documents were shredded. Shred Day 2 – September 4, 1998 – resulted in an additional 200 gunny sacks of documents that would not fit in the truck on the prior day, being turned into confetti.

Mr. Karp described the bulk of the documents shredded as piles of computer printouts accumulated over several years, some hundreds of pages long, depicting circuit simulations.

Nissly attempted to paint the after event as a celebration. Mr. Karp disagreed with the description and told attorney Nissly that Rambus functions regularly included pizza, beer and champagne. No further mention was made of the after event.

Flashing in my brain was a visual of a bunch of engineers tossing dusty piles of computers printouts into gunny sacks, dragging them done the halls and out into the parking lot to a waiting truck guarded by security types attempting to appear authoritative and serious. Followed by the engineers chowing on pizza, beer and champagne.

Mr. Karp testified that a discovery data file would contain records for each patent that mirrored the file at the Patent and Trademark Office. All extraneous documents in Rambus’s file would be destroyed. I believe at this juncture, Mr. Karp attempted – without success - to testify that outside counsel recommended this file cleaning.

Rambus did purchase a scanner and some software to create the desired files. Mr. Karp indicated that they were unable to get the scanner / software to work and hired out the job. (I nearly laughed out loud! – I bought an early generation scanner a few years ago . . . it was a frustrating disaster.)

Organizing outside counsel’s files was a topic of interest for both teams.

A sticking point with Judge Whyte, Team Hynix and Team Rambus is what can and can not be said concerning Rambus’s legal counsel. Judge Whyte on more than one occasion indicated that he is not clear on exactly where the lines are drawn. He indicated that Rambus has a narrow view and Hynix wants to include some and exclude some.

Nissly stated that Hynix does not want Rambus to point to its legal counsel as an “excuse” for any document destruction.

Both Teams pitched to Judge Whyte. In the end he allowed Karp to testify that Rambus didn’t get around to asking outside counsel to clean their files.

Likely, one more segment . . .