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 26

425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO
CALIFORNIA 94105-2482
U.S.A.

MO RRI SO N & F O E RST E R L LP

TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: 415.268.7522

T O K YO , L O N D O N , BR U SSE L S,
BE I JI N G , SH AN G H AI , H O N G K O N G

N E W YO RK , SAN F RAN C I SCO ,
L O S A N G E L E S, P A L O A L T O ,
SAC RAME N T O , SAN D I E G O ,
D E N VE R, N O RT H E RN VI RG I N I A,
WASH I N G T O N , D .C.

WWW.MOFO.COM

April 30, 2012
By Email ([e-mail])

Writer’s Direct Contact
415.268.6024
[e-mail]

Diane Hutnyan
Quinn Emanuel
865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Re:

Apple v. Samsung, Case No. 11-cv-1846-LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Diane:
This letter responds to Brad Goldberg’s email sent at 10:30 P.M. on April 27, 2012, which
requested several items of information related to Apple’s Administrative Motion for
Clarification Regarding April 12 Order, filed April 26, 2012 (“Motion”).
Apple has requested that its outside counsel in the eight other matters at issue review their
files and identify all third parties whose consent would need to be obtained in order for all
remaining documents to be released. It is our understanding that all such third parties have
been notified and their consent requested. Authorizations from third parties are coming in on
a rolling basis. As that happens, counsel in the relevant other actions are sending us any
documents that can be produced as a result. Often, multiple other parties’ CBI is implicated.
As you know, we have also requested authorization from the International Trade
Commission to produce all CBI.
Mr. Goldberg asks about the more than twenty entities from whom Apple has requested
consent. Nearly all of the notice letters were attached to Apple’s filing with the International
Trade Commission last week, reflecting notice to Thomas L. Cronan III, Jefferson Han,
Perceptive Pixel, Wi-Fi Alliance, Atmel, AT&T, Cetecom, Google, IBM, Synaptic, Marvell,
Microsoft, New York University, Hewlett-Packard, Qualcomm, TED Conferences, Texas
Instruments, Dominic Tolli, University of Delaware, and Deborah Coutant regarding the
Motorola matters; and Elan regarding the Elan matters. Additional copies are attached.
After Apple filed its papers with the ITC, counsel for Apple identified additional nonparty
entities whose CBI was contained in ITC court documents, and sent additional notice letters,
which are attached hereto. The nonparties noticed in those letters were Cypress
Semiconductors (regarding the HTC ITC matter) and Cirque, Alcatel-Lucent, Synaptics, and
Red Nun (regarding the Elan matters). In addition, counsel for Apple has sent the attached
notice letters regarding the federal district court matters to Google (regarding the HTC
Delaware matter) and Nokia (regarding the Nokia Delaware matter).

sf-3139264

Diane Hutnyan
April 30, 2012
Page Two
We also attach hereto correspondence sent to Winston & Strawn, your co-counsel for
Motorola. As you will see, we have been unable to secure Motorola’s consent to produce
because Motorola has refused to allow Apple’s counsel of record in this case, WilmerHale, to
have access to its confidential information.
Mr. Goldberg’s email also references a statement in Apple’s Motion that a third party has
given consent for the production of materials related to a single hearing. This was a
reference to Atmel, which gave this consent to Samsung on December 21, 2011, in email
correspondence to you in connection with Samsung’s request for Markman-related
information. We have since learned that counsel for Apple in the Motorola matters just
recently received broader authorization from Atmel, as attached hereto, but we are informed
that this broader authorization does not allow Apple to produce any additional documents, as
the documents to which it relates also have the confidential information of other parties who
have not provided consent.
The responses Apple has received to its counsel’s notice letters are attached.
We do not have an index of all the documents still affected by these CBI issues in these
cases. We cannot prepare one because we are not privileged to see the documents until
consent to produce is obtained.
Finally, on a different aspect of the April 12 Order, we renew our request that you identify
immediately any Apple witness you request to depose as a result of Apple’s production of
deposition transcripts from related cases. We note that it is now ten days before Samsung’s
May 10 deadline for completing any such depositions and we still have not received a single
name from you. Apple informed you ten days ago that it had completed its production of
deposition transcripts under the April 12 Order, and stated that we would need to receive the
names of any deponents by April 25 in order to have time to fit depositions into the
employees’ schedules. Your delay in identifying deponents—if you intend to seek additional
depositions—risks making depositions before May 10 impossible, and Apple does not intend
to make any employees available after that date.
Sincerely,
/s/ Mia Mazza
Mia Mazza
Encls.
cc:

S. Calvin Walden
Peter Kolovos

sf-3139264