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 24

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]

May 28, 2012
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mia Mazza, Esq.
Morrison & Foerster LLP
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 Mia,
Thank you for your letter of May 24th.
The general concept here is that Apple's experts should be prevented from presenting, either
affirmatively or in response to our use of the transcripts, explanations, denials or other responses,
when Samsung was precluded from obtaining that information during discovery due to Apple's
undisputed withholding of the transcripts. So the issue is not really about finding a particular
reference in a past report; it's that all such references, whether they have been made or are yet to
be made, are improper.
Further, if Apple believes none of its experts have furnished any "expert report or testimony in
this case that refers to, responds to, denies, relies upon, or is contrary to any testimony contained
in the transcripts Apple produced pursuant to the April 12 Order," then it sounds like Apple
should not be opposing the relief requested in subsection (3). Please confirm that that is the case.

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

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 825, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2400 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
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]
LONDON | 16

I also note that you misquoted Samsung's requested relief. Please refer to the motion to
understand the scope of what is at issue here.

Kind regards,
/s/ Diane C. Hutnyan
Diane C. Hutnyan

2