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

Filing 1119

MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Response Re Arguments Made At June 21 Hearing filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Of Jason R. Bartlett In Support Of Apples Motion For Leave To File Supplemental Response Re Arguments Made At June 21 Hearing, #2 Declaration Of Nathan Sabri In Support Of Apples Motion For Leave To File Supplemental Response Re Arguments Made At June 21 Hearing, #3 Exhibit A, #4 Exhibit B, #5 Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 6/22/2012) Modified text on 6/27/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
[e-mail]
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
[e-mail]
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

WILLIAM F. LEE
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

10
11

Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN JOSE DIVISION

17

APPLE INC.,

18
19
20
21
22

Case No.
Plaintiff,

v.
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,

11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

DECLARATION OF
NATHAN SABRI IN SUPPORT OF
APPLE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSE RE ARGUMENTS
MADE AT JUNE 21 HEARING

23
Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
SABRI DECL. ISO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE RE JUNE 21 HEARING

CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG)
sf-3162333

1

I, NATHAN SABRI, declare as follows:

2

1.

I am an attorney with the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel for Apple

3

Inc. (“Apple”). I am licensed to practice law in the State of California. I have personal

4

knowledge of the matters stated herein or understand them to be true from members of my

5

litigation team. I make this declaration in support of Apple’s Supplemental Response re

6

Arguments Made at June 21 Hearing.

7

2.

Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct index of all transcript excerpts and

8

transcripts produced by Apple to Samsung after April 27, 2012. Except for three transcripts

9

discussed below, Apple produced all of these transcript excerpts and transcripts because they

10

were part of court documents filed in related proceedings. Several transcripts produced were

11

taken in a case which does not have a technological nexus. They were produced only because

12

they were made part of court documents in cases having a technological nexus.

13

3.

On the morning of April 13, my colleague forwarded to counsel for Apple in the

14

related matters a copy of the April 12 Order and requested that they produce “the deposition

15

transcripts of all Apple employees.” Apple promptly produced all of the transcripts that had not

16

been produced earlier in the litigation upon receipt from Apple’s counsel in the related matters,

17

including transcripts received from counsel in the Motorola matter the same day.

18

4.

On May 25, 2012, Samsung’s counsel in this action, which also represents

19

Motorola in the ongoing litigation between Apple and Motorola, noted that Apple’s production of

20

transcripts did not include transcripts from after March 27, 2012. My colleague immediately

21

contacted counsel for Apple in the related matters again to ask whether any new deposition

22

transcripts had come in. Three transcripts taken in the ongoing Motorola litigation and prepared

23

no earlier than three days before the April 12 Order—April 9, 2012 (Nima Parivar); April 10,

24

2012 (William Stewart); and April 11, 2012 (Greg Novick)—were provided in response. Due to

25

the proximity of these three depositions to the date of the April 12 Order, these transcripts were

26

not among the transcripts provided to us on April 13.

27
28

5.

Attached as Exhibit B are true and correct copies of cover pages and court

reporter signature pages from these three transcripts.
SABRI DECL. ISO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE RE JUNE 21 HEARING

CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG)
sf-3162333

1

1
2

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this
22nd day of June, 2012 at San Francisco, California.

3
4

/s/ Nathan Sabri
Nathan Sabri

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

SABRI DECL. ISO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE RE JUNE 21 HEARING

CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG)
sf-3162333

2

1
2

ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE
I, Michael A. Jacobs, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this

3

Declaration. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Nathan Sabri has

4

concurred in this filing.

5

Dated: June 22, 2012

/s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Michael A. Jacobs

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SABRI DECL. ISO MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE RE JUNE 21 HEARING

CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG)
sf-3162333

3