Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al

Filing 1041

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apple Inc.'s Opposition to Samsung's Motion to Enforce April 12, 2012 Order filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Erica Tierney in Support of Admin. Motion to Seal, #2 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Seal, #3 Apple's Opposition to Samsung's Motion to Enforce April 12, 2012 Order, #4 Proposed Order Denying Samsung's Motion, #5 Declaration of Mia Mazza in Support of Apple's Opposition, #6 Exhibit 1, #7 Exhibit 2, #8 Exhibit 3, #9 Exhibit 4, #10 Exhibit 5, #11 Exhibit 6, #12 Exhibit 7)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 6/5/2012) Modified on 6/6/2012 pursuant to General Order No. 62, attachment #1 sealed (dhm, COURT STAFF).

DECLARATION OF MIA MAZZA IN SUPPORT
OF APPLE’S OPPOSITIONS TO SAMSUNG’S
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND MOTION TO
ENFORCE

EXHIBIT 3

March 6, 2012
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Rachel Herrick Kassabian, Esq.
Diane C. Hutnyan, Esq.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Re:

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.,
Case No. 11-cv-01856-LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Rachel and Diane:
I write regarding Samsung’s request for additional deposition time with Tony Blevins in the ND
Cal matter and its noticed ND Cal deposition of Saku Hieta (served on February 27).
As an initial matter, Apple objects to Samsung’s eleventh-hour notice of Mr. Hieta’s deposition.
Apple submitted Mr. Hieta’s declaration in support of its partial summary judgment motion over
a month ago, and Samsung could have served a notice for his deposition at any time thereafter,
rather than wait until the eve of the fact discovery deadline. Apple also disagrees that Samsung
is entitled to any additional deposition time with Mr. Blevins.
Nonetheless, in the spirit of compromise, Apple is willing to designate the transcript from the
February 23 deposition of Mr. Blevins as 30(b)(6) testimony for the ND Cal matter. In addition,
Apple is willing to make Mr. Blevins available for an additional half day of 30(b)(6) testimony
in the ND Cal matter. We are checking Mr. Blevins’ availability, but it will not be on or before
March 8, 2012. In return, Samsung would agree to withdraw its notice for the deposition of Mr.
Hieta. As you know, both Messrs. Blevins and Hieta work in the supply chain area. Designating
the Blevins testimony as corporate testimony and offering an additional half-day of testimony
from Mr. Blevins moots any need for Mr. Hieta’s deposition.
This offer is conditioned on Samsung’s agreement that providing Mr. Blevins for additional
deposition time after March 8 will not be used as a basis for seeking postponement of any other
deadlines in the case.
Please let us know if this is agreeable so that we can finalize a schedule.
Very truly yours,
/s/ Peter J. Kolovos
Peter J. Kolovos