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

Filing 1086

Declaration of MIA MAZZA in Support of #1085 MOTION to Strike #1040 Opposition filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) #1085 ) (Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 6/12/2012) Modified text on 6/13/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

Exhibit B

Page 1 of 2

From:

Diane Hutnyan [[e-mail]]

Sent:

Friday, June 08, 2012 7:46 PM

To:

Mazza, Mia

Cc:

AppleMoFo; Samsung v. Apple; [e-mail]

Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung: Correspondence re Samsung's Opposition to Notice of Motion for Clarification of April 12 Order

Dear Mia,
Samsung’s opposition brief was filed properly in response to Apple’s May 22 noticed motion under L.R.
7-3.
As we have said previously, though, there was no reason for Apple to notice its administrative“motion
for clarification,” once Samsung had filed its motion to enforce, since Apple’s noncompliance with the
order was already being addressed by the parties in connection with that motion.
But Apple chose to add another motion to the Court’s busy calendar anyway, going beyond the scope of
our motion to seek reconsideration and reversal of the Court’s order. We urge Apple to withdraw its
improper motion. But if Apple wants to maintain it, then the Local Rules allow us to have a proper
response: an opposition brief of up to 25 pages, filed not more than 14 days after the motion is served
and filed. This allows us a fair opportunity to address the issues Apple has raised, in sharp contrast to
the five-page opposition brief to be filed in four days that Apple opted to afford us in connection with
the original Administrative Motion, and which was insufficient to fully address the important substantive
issues Apple raised there.
Have a good weekend.
Diane
From: Mazza, Mia [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, June 08, 2012 3:07 PM
To: Diane Hutnyan
Cc: AppleMoFo; Samsung v. Apple; [e-mail]
Subject: Apple v. Samsung: Correspondence re Samsung's Opposition to Notice of Motion for
Clarification of April 12 Order

<<2012-06-08 Ltr Mazza to Hutnyan re Opposition Brief.pdf>>
Hi Diane,
Attached please find correspondence regarding Samsung's June 5, 2012 "Opposition to Notice of Motion
for Clarification of April 12 Order."
Regards,
Mia Mazza
Morrison & Foerster LLP
San Francisco
[phone] office
[phone] mobile
[phone] fax

--------------------------------------------------------------------6/12/2012

Page 2 of 2
To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that, if any advice
concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including any attachments), such
advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the
Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter
addressed herein.
For information about this legend, go to
http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/
============================================================================
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or
authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information
contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply e-mail
@mofo.com, and delete the message.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

6/12/2012