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 10

quinn emanuel

trial lawyers | los angeles

865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]

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

February 24, 2012
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Jason Bartlett, Esq.
Morrison & Foerster
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Re:

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

Dear Jason:
Following on my February 18 letter, I write to update Apple further on Samsung's efforts to
obtain approval from certain third parties for Apple to produce materials from related actions that
purportedly contain the confidential business information of those third parties.
Regarding Nokia and Motorola, these entities have notified us that they cannot agree to give
Samsung this approval without knowing more about the specific documents in Apple's
possession that purportedly contain their confidential business information. Samsung, of course,
does not have access to these documents and cannot provide the information these entities
require. Therefore, Samsung requests that Apple produce these documents in redacted form no
later than Monday, February 27, 2012 or, by tomorrow, identify all such documents from related
actions that contain Nokia's or Motorola's confidential business information, with sufficient
specificity to allow those entities to make a determination about whether they will grant
permission.
Regarding HTC, Samsung has identified an additional action that contains materials related to
this litigation. Please add Apple Inc. et al v. High Tech Computer Corp., 10-cv-166-GMS (D.
Del.) to the list of cases from which Apple is preparing materials to produce. Samsung has been
unable to secure permission from HTC for Apple to produce documents containing its
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
NEW YORK | 51

Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SAN FRANCISCO | 50

WASHINGTON, DC | 1299
LONDON | 16

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 825, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2400 | TEL [phone]

FAX (202)

Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Building, 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]
MOSCOW | Voentorg Building, 3rd Floor, 10 Vozdvizhenka Street, Moscow 125009, Russia | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]

538-8100

confidential business information. Therefore, please produce, no later than Monday, February
27, 2012, redacted copies of documents from those related actions identified in my previous
correspondence, as well as from the additional suit identified above.
Although you represented on February 10 that "[o]nce Samsung obtains this consent, Apple will
promptly produce such documents," we have received no response to my letter of the 18th
notifying you that we had obtained that consent with regard to Google and Atmel. Nor has
Apple ever confirmed what cases it will agree to provide information from, or given us a
complete list of which cases have CBI issues and which do not. And it does not appear we have
received any documents from these cases, even the ones where no CBI issue has been identified.
Please let us know when these documents will be produced, and if they have been produced,
please provide the relevant Bates numbers and clearly identify what cases the materials come
from (identifying each case production by Bates numbers as well). As you know, Apple finally
agreed that it should provide, as part of the meet and confer process, the kind of information that
it would eventually disclose in resisting a motion to compel, rather than holding that information
back until a motion was filed. Please abide by that agreement and respond in detail to my letters.
If Apple refuses to cooperate, or fails to respond, Samsung will bring this issue back to the Court
for resolution, as contemplated in footnote 1 of the Court's December 22, 2011 Order on this
issue (Dkt. 536).
Kind regards,
/s/ Diane C. Hutnyan
Diane C. Hutnyan