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

Filing 1088

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order, #2 Reply in Support of Motion for Rule 37 Sanctions, #3 Reply Declaration of Diane C. Hutnyan, #4 Exhibit 1, #5 Exhibit 2, #6 Exhibit 3, #7 Exhibit 4, #8 Exhibit 5, #9 Exhibit 6, #10 Exhibit 7, #11 Exhibit 8, #12 Exhibit 9, #13 Exhibit 10, #14 Exhibit 11, #15 Exhibit 12, #16 Exhibit 13)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 6/12/2012)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]
 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
 [e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]
 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
 AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

 APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,




vs.

 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendants.


CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
REPLY DECLARATION OF DIANE C.
HUTNYAN IN SUPPORT OF
SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RULE 37
SANCTIONS FOR APPLE’S VIOLATION
OF DECEMBER 22, 2011 COURT ORDER
Date: June 21, 2012
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Place: Courtroom 5, 4th Floor
Judge: Hon. Paul S. Grewal




02198.51855/4805728.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
REPLY DECL OF DIANE C. HUTNYAN ISO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RULE 37 SANCTIONS

1

I, Diane C. Hutnyan, declare:

2

1.

I am a partner with the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP,

3 counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung
4
5

Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”).
the State of California.

I am licensed to practice law in

I submit this reply declaration in support of Samsung’s Motion for Rule

6
7
8

37 Sanctions for Apple's Violation of December 22, 2011 Court Order.

I have personal

knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called upon as a witness, I could and

9 would testify to the following facts.
10

2.

From our review of Apple's production, it appears that Apple produced or deemed

11 produced over 280 employee transcripts from twelve cases with a technological nexus to this case,
12

including 34 inventor transcripts, in response to the April 12 Order.

13

3.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 are true and correct excerpts of the Transcript of the

14
15

April 9, 2012 hearing on Samsung's Motion to Compel and Motion to Enforce Dec. 22, 2011

16 Court Order.
4.

17

Apple did not produce a single responsive deposition transcript between December

18 22, 2011, and January 15, 2012.
19
20

5.

As early as February 8, 2012, Samsung’s counsel asked Apple’s counsel to provide

a complete list of cases bearing a technological nexus to this one so that it could determine

21
22
23

whether Apple had complied with the December 22 Order.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a

true and correct copy of a February 8, 2012 letter from me to Apple’s counsel asking for such a

24 list.

Apple's counsel failed to provide any such list in response to this letter, although we

25 followed up several times asking for a complete list.
26
27

6.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a February 29, 2012

letter from Apple's counsel to me in which Apple's counsel refused to provide a list while

28
02198.51855/4805728.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-2REPLY DECL OF DIANE C. HUTNYAN ISO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RULE 37 SANCTIONS

1 criticizing Samsung's proposed list.

To date, Apple’s counsel has never provided a list of the

2 cases it believes fall within the technological nexus standard, nor has Apple ever confirmed that
3
4

Samsung's list is complete.
7.

At the parties’ lead counsel meet and confer session on February 14 and 15, 2012,

5
6
7

Apple’s counsel refused to produce deposition transcripts from the 796 Investigation, in which
similar patents are being litigated. On March 26, 2012, Apple’s counsel stated that it would be

8 willing to stipulate that ITC 796 bears a technological nexus to this case. A true and correct copy
9 of that email is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

To my knowledge, Apple has never denied that

10 there was a technological nexus between the two cases.
11
12

8.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of an email from Apple’s

counsel to Samsung’s counsel, dated Sunday, April 15, 2012 and time stamped 5:55 PM, in which

13
14

Apple agreed for the first time to allow Samsung to use the deposition transcripts from ITC 796 in

15 this case.
16

9.

Although Apple contends that it produced 49 transcripts before the Court's April 12

17 Order, in actuality, it produced only 29 in the Northern District case, where it was ordered to
18 produce them.
19

It appears that Apple arrived at its figure by adding the 5 deposition transcripts it

produced only in the ITC 794 Investigation and the 15 deposition transcripts it produced only in

20
21
22
23

the ITC 796 Investigation, which it had previously not included when it described its production in
compliance with the December 22 order.
10.

Apple produced the July 13, 2011 Deposition Transcript of Leonard Cimini on

24 April 24, 2012; the September 27, 2010 Deposition Transcript of Steve Bisset on April 26, 2012;
25 the April 5, 2012 Deposition Transcript of Gregory Novick, the March 30, 2012 Deposition
26

Transcript of Nima Parivar, and the April 10, 2012 Deposition Transcript of William Stewart for

27
28
02198.51855/4805728.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-3REPLY DECL OF DIANE C. HUTNYAN ISO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RULE 37 SANCTIONS

1 the first time on May 31, 2012; and the July 9, 2010 Deposition Transcript of Greg Bomberger and
2 the August 3, 2011 Deposition Transcript of Marc Foodman for the first time on June 7, 2012.
3
4

11.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of a document produced in

this action by Apple with the bates numbers APL-ITC796-0000003879-3885.

5
12.

6
7

Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

deposition of Christopher Stringer, taken in U.S. I.T.C. Investigation No. 337-TA-796 on February

8 15, 2012.
9

13.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

10 deposition of Daniel Coster, taken in U.S. I.T.C. Investigation No. 337-TA-796 on February 7,
11

2012.

12

14.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

13
14

deposition of Evans Hankey, taken in U.S. I.T.C. Investigation No. 337-TA-796 on March 15,

15 2012.
15.

16

Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

17 deposition of Daniele De Iuliis, taken in U.S. I.T.C. Investigation No. 337-TA-796 on February
18 22, 2012.
19

16.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

20
21
22

deposition of Matthew Rohrbach, taken in U.S. I.T.C. Investigation No. 337-TA-796 on February
23, 2012.

23

17.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

24 deposition of Bartley Andre, taken in U.S. I.T.C. Investigation No. 337-TA-796 on February 29,
25 2012.
26
27
28
02198.51855/4805728.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-4REPLY DECL OF DIANE C. HUTNYAN ISO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RULE 37 SANCTIONS

1

18.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the

2 deposition of Rico Zorkendorfer, taken in U.S. I.T.C. Investigation No. 337-TA-796 on February
3
4

10, 2012.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is

5
6
7

true and correct.
Executed in Los Angeles, California on June 12, 2012.

8
9
10

/s/ Diane C. Hutnyan
Diane C. Hutnyan

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4805728.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-5REPLY DECL OF DIANE C. HUTNYAN ISO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RULE 37 SANCTIONS

1
2

GENERAL ORDER ATTESTATION
I, Victoria Maroulis, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to file the

3 foregoing document. I hereby attest pursuant to General Order 45.X.B. that concurrence in the
4

electronic filing of this document has been obtained from Diane Hutnyan.

5
6
7

/s/ Victoria Maroulis

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4805728.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-6REPLY DECL OF DIANE C. HUTNYAN ISO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RULE 37 SANCTIONS