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

Filing 1592

Declaration of Jason R. Bartlett in Support of 1591 Opposition/Response to Motion for Adverse Inference Jury Instruction 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)(Related document(s) 1591 ) (Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 8/6/2012)

425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO
CALIFORNIA 94105-2482

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

TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: 415.268.7522

N O RT H E RN VI RG I N I A, D E N VE R,
SAC RAME N T O , WAL N U T C RE E K

WWW.MOFO.COM

March 14, 2012

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 ,
SAN D I E G O , WASH I N G T O N , D .C .

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

Writer’s Direct Contact
415.268.6615
[e-mail]

By Email ([e-mail])
Diane C. Hutnyan
Quinn Emanuel
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Re:

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

Dear Diane:
I write in response to your March 11 letter regarding model shop documents and documents
sourced to Christopher Harris and Christopher Hood.
Apple has repeatedly warned Samsung that discovery of individuals connected with the
model shop is wasteful, as these individuals are unlikely to have responsive documents or
relevant knowledge. Samsung’s recent deposition of Mark Lee, who manages the model
shop, confirmed Apple’s position. Mr. Lee testified that model shop members do not have
relevant documents, do not have design responsibility, do not participate in alternative
decisions, are unfamiliar with design changes, and are not part of any regular project
meetings. Against this backdrop, your feigned surprise at the light productions for
Mr. Harris and Mr. Hood—like your previous letter complaining about the thin production
for Mr. Von Minden, Apple’s paint mixer—is not credible.
Your claim that Samsung’s request for production addressing invention conception reaches
all documents, logs, and data created by the model shop is without merit. Apple has
produced, inter alia, sketchbooks, schematics, all ID CAD files, external design MCOs, all
ID models, and CAD “surface files” exchanged between ID and PD, and provided Samsung
with extensive custodial productions and depositions from the inventors and designers who
work with the models and would legitimately possess invention conception information.
Model shop records and logs do not bear on the conception of Apple’s design patents.
Apple collected and searched Mr. Harris’s documents and, not surprisingly, did not discover
anything responsive.

sf-3118811

Diane C. Hutnyan
March 14, 2012
Page Two
Your assertion that Apple did not search Mr. Hood’s documents and did not produce email
sourced to him is easily shown to be false by simply looking at Apple’s production. Despite
Mr. Hood’s irrelevance to this case, Apple produced 690 documents sourced to him,
including many emails that hit on Apple’s disclosed search terms. As we have requested
many times in the past, please do not accuse Apple of failing to produce documents without
first checking Apple’s production and the provided custodial information.
Sincerely,
/s/ Jason R. Bartlett
Jason R. Bartlett
cc:

Peter Kolovos
S. Calvin Walden

sf-3118811