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

Filing 1043

Declaration of Nathan Sabri in Support of #1042 Opposition/Response to Motion, #1041 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apple Inc.'s Opposition to Samsung's Motion to Enforce April 12, 2012 Order filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Exhibit 13, #14 Exhibit 14, #15 Exhibit 15, #16 Exhibit 16, #17 Exhibit 17, #18 Exhibit 18, #19 Exhibit 19, #20 Exhibit 20, #21 Exhibit 21, #22 Exhibit 22, #23 Exhibit 23, #24 Exhibit 24, #25 Exhibit 25, #26 Exhibit 26, #27 Exhibit 27)(Related document(s) #1042 , #1041 ) (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 6/5/2012)

DECLARATION OF NATHAN SABRI IN
SUPPORT OF APPLE’S OPPOSITIONS TO
SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AND
MOTION TO ENFORCE

EXHIBIT 1

quinn emanuel

trial lawyers | silicon valley

555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
[phone]
WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
[e-mail]

October 21, 2011
Via E-Mail
Wesley E. Overson
Morrison & Foerster
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Peter J. Kolovos
WilmerHale
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Re:

Apple v. Samsung Elecs. Co. et al., Case No. 11-cv-1846 LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Wesley and Peter:
This letter summarizes the parties' meet and confer of October 19, 2011, and provides a
few minor updates on several of the issues discussed.
I. Joint Issues
Draft Protective Order
The parties agreed to further discuss Apple’s changes made in the draft it transmitted on
October 18, including the sections regarding the trademark prosecution bar, source code review,
and cross-use. The parties agreed that the protective order should be finalized as soon as
practicable.

quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES | 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
NEW YORK | 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SAN FRANCISCO | 50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
LONDON | 16 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Bldg., 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MANNHEIM | Erzbergerstraße 5, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]

Providing Mockups at Depositions
Samsung requested that Apple make available its product mockups at the depositions of
the relevant inventors. Apple refused, claiming that the mockups were too numerous. When I
asked how many there were, Apple indicated that it did not know. Apple also claimed that the
mockups were fragile. When I indicated that many of the mockups were made of hard plastic
and/or metal, Apple did not have a response. Samsung reiterates its request that Apple make
these highly relevant materials available at the upcoming inventor depositions. If Apple declines
to do so, Samsung will not consider these depositions closed, and reserves all rights to seek to
continue the depositions to question the inventors regarding these mockups at a second
deposition session, pursuant to court order if necessary.
Prior Deposition Transcripts and Exhibits Thereto
Samsung requested that Apple provide all prior deposition transcripts for all inventor
witnesses. Apple claimed that such materials are irrelevant. Samsung identified why these
materials were relevant, including that as prior sworn testimony, these materials were relevant to
the witness’s credibility. Moreover, Apple itself has propounded similar document requests
calling for prior deposition transcripts. See, e.g., Apple's Third Set of Requests for Product, Nos.
151-153; Apple's Fourth Set of Requests for Production, No. 184. Given that the Apple inventor
depositions are currently ongoing, Samsung requests that Apple produce these materials
immediately.
Samsung further requested that Apple produce the exhibits referenced in the prior
deposition transcripts. Apple represented that although it would not provide all exhibits for all
prior depositions, it would honor specific requests for relevant exhibits. Samsung reiterated that
Apple should produce all of these materials, and further made a specific request that Samsung
provide the Christensen transcripts and accompanying exhibits without delay due to his
upcoming deposition.
Apple's Document Collection Process
Apple represented that it had interviewed each of its inventor deponents and asked them
for relevant documents. When the inventor deponents directed Apple’s counsel to relevant
documents Apple claims that it searched those sources and produced responsive documents.
Apple further represented that it had search the email accounts of all of its inventors using
previously disclosed search terms, and that in some instances (but not all) it had also conducted
searches of these inventors’ computer hard drives. Apple later represented that it would provide
Samsung with a further description of its collection process thus far. When I asked if Apple
wished to correct any of its representations made during our call, Apple indicated that none were
necessary.

3

Apple’s Responses to Samsung’s First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for Production
of Documents
Apple represented that it will endeavor to respond to our previous letter on this issue by
Friday October 21.
Very truly yours,
/s/
Rachel Herrick Kassabian

cc:

Mia Mazza
Jason Bartlett
Sam Maselli
Calvin Walden

4