Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2313 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 1 of 2

1 ROBERT E. FREITAS (STATE BAR NO. 80948)

CRAIG R. KAUFMAN (STATE BAR NO. 159458)
2 VICKIE L. FEEMAN (STATE BAR NO. 177487)
THERESA E. NORTON (STATE BAR NO. 193530)
3 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
1000 Marsh Road
4 Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: 650-614-7400
5 Facsimile: 650-614-7401
6 Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaim Plaintiffs
NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION and
7 NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION U.S.A.
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
RAMBUS INC., Case No. CV-05-00334 RMW
12
Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF THERESA E.
13 NORTON IN SUPPORT OF NANYA
v. TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
14 AND NANYA TECHNOLOGY
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR INC., HYNIX CORPORATION USA’S REPLY TO
15 SEMICONDUCTOR AMERICA, INC., RAMBUS’ OPPOSITION TO THE
HYNIX SEMICONDUCTOR MOTION RE-OPEN DISCOVERY AS
16 MANUFACTURING AMERICA INC., TO CERTAIN DEPOSITIONS
17 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., Date: October 1, 2008
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, Time: 8:30 a.m.
18 INC., SAMSUNG SEMICONDUCTOR, Location: Telephonic Hearing
INC., SAMSUNG AUSTIN Judge: Hon. Read A. Ambler (Ret.)
19 SEMICONDUCTOR, L.P.,
20 NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION,
NANYA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION
21 U.S.A.,
22 Defendants.
23

24 AND RELATED ACTIONS.

25

26

27

28
NORTON DECLARATION RE NANYA’S
MOTION TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY
CASE NO. C05-00334 RMW
 Case 5:05-cv-00334-RMW Document 2313 Filed 09/29/2008 Page 2 of 2

1 I, Theresa E. Norton, declare as follows:

2 1. I am an attorney with the law firm of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
3 counsel of record for defendants and counterclaim plaintiffs Nanya Technology Corporation
4 (“Nanya”) and Nanya Technology Corporation USA (“Nanya USA”). Except where it is stated
5 that my knowledge is based on information and belief, I have personal knowledge of the
6 following facts and if called as a witness I could and would testify competently to them.
7 2. On or about August 22, 2008, I participated in a telephonic meet and confer
8 conference with counsel for Rambus and the other Manufacturers. During that teleconference,
9 the parties discussed possible dates for a deposition of Silicon Graphics, Inc. (“SGI”), a third
10 party subpoenaed for a deposition by Rambus. Rambus did not propose any date on which it
11 might take SGI’s deposition, saying that it was waiting to hear back from SGI as to its
12 availability. The parties discussed that they would expect to schedule this deposition to take
13 place in the first few weeks of September.
14 3. On September 4, 2008, Rosemarie Ring, counsel for Rambus, circulated to all of
15 the parties a draft stipulation, purportedly representing the parties’ agreement that certain
16 depositions could be taken after the close of discovery. Rambus’ draft stipulation did not
17 include any of the JEDEC witnesses, but it did include SGI. Attached as Exhibit A is a true
18 and correct copy of the draft of the parties’ stipulation that Rambus provided on September 4,
19 2008.
20 4. On information and belief, Rambus deposed SGI on September 17, 2008.
21

22 I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the Unites States of America that the
23 foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Executed this 29th day of
24 September, 2008 in Palo Alto, California.
25
/s/ Theresa E. Norton
26 Theresa E. Norton
27 OHS West:260523069.1

28
NORTON REPLY DECLARATION RE NANYA’S
1 MOTION TO RE-OPEN DISCOVERY
CASE NO. C05-00334 RMW