Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
OPPOSITION to #967 MOTION for Clarification of April 12 Order by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company) (Attachments: #1 Declaration Of Diane C. Hutnyan In Support of Samsung's Opposition to Notice of Motion for Clarification of April 12 Order, #2 Exhibit A to Declaration Of Diane C. Hutnyan In Support of Samsung's Opposition to Notice of Motion for Clarification of April 12 Order, #3 Exhibit B to Declaration Of Diane C. Hutnyan In Support of Samsung's Opposition to Notice of Motion for Clarification of April 12 Order, #4 Exhibit C to Declaration Of Diane C. Hutnyan In Support of Samsung's Opposition to Notice of Motion for Clarification of April 12 Order, #5 Exhibit D to Declaration Of Diane C. Hutnyan In Support of Samsung's Opposition to Notice of Motion for Clarification of April 12 Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 6/5/2012) Modified text on 6/6/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).
quinn emanuel trial lawyers | los angeles
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL: (213) 443-3000 FAX: (213) 443-3100
WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
May 25, 2012
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mia Mazza, Esq.
Morrison & Foerster LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Apple v. Samsung Elecs. Co. et al., Case No. 11-cv-1846 LHK (N.D. Cal.)
I write again regarding Apple's continued non-compliance with the Court's April 12, 2012 Order
regarding production of materials from related proceedings.
In your April 30 letter, you stated that Apple had notified and requested consent from
"all" "third parties whose consent would need to be obtained in order for all remaining
documents to be released." On May 7, however, Apple's Status Update stated that
counsel for Apple in the Elan v. Apple action in the Northern District of California "is
reviewing to confirm no additional consents are required prior to production." Please let
us know whether counsel for Apple has now finished its review, and whether it
determined that consents were needed from any third parties not previously identified. If
additional third parties were identified, please identify them by name, let us know
whether and when they received a notification and request for consent, and furnish us
with a copy of any related correspondence.
2. Please let us know what Apple has done since April 30 to secure consent from each of the
third parties whose CBI has been implicated, and provide us with copies of all related
correspondence. For each of the third parties, also please specifically identify whose lack
of consent Apple believes still remains a "barrier to production,” and provide a brief
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
NEW YORK | 51
Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL (212) 849-7000 FAX (212) 849-7100
California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL (415) 875-6600 FAX (415) 875-6700
SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL (650) 801-5000 FAX (650) 801-5100
CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL (312) 705-7400 FAX (312) 705-7401
SAN FRANCISCO | 50
WASHINGTON, DC | 1299
Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 825, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2400 | TEL (202) 538-8000 FAX (202) 538-8100
Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL +44(0) 20 7653 2000 FAX +44(0) 20 7653 2100
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Building, 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL +81 3 5510 1711 FAX +81 3 5510 1712
MANNHEIM | Erzbergerstraße 5, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL +49(0) 621 43298 6000 FAX +49(0) 621 43298 6100
MOSCOW | Voentorg Building, 3rd Floor, 10 Vozdvizhenka Street, Moscow 125009, Russia | TEL +7 495 797 3666 FAX +7 495 797 3667
LONDON | 16
description of whatever issue is proving to be an impediment, and specifically what
Apple has done to address it.
3. Please identify by Bates number all documents from proceedings with a technological
nexus that Apple has produced since it filed its May 7 Status Update Regarding
Compliance With April 12 Order.
4. In your May 4 letter, you stated that "[w]ith respect to the Elan ITC matter, the docket
sheet reflects what is being withheld—all documents that were filed confidentially as
opposed to publicly." Please explain why Apple is withholding "all documents that were
filed confidentially" as opposed to only documents that contain Elan CBI. Please
quantify and specifically identify the materials from the Elan ITC case still being
5. Please produce all remaining documents responsive to Section B.2. of the April 12 order
in redacted form without further delay.
6. Please produce immediately any employee deposition transcripts from the ten cases with
a technological nexus that have not already been produced and explain why they were
withheld. Note also that Apple has a continuing obligation to produce new responsive
transcripts. It appears Apple only produced transcripts from depositions taken before or
on March 27, 2012.
I look forward to hearing from you.
/s/ Diane C. Hutnyan
Diane C. Hutnyan
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?