Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
272
MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages Motion for Administrative Relief to Exceed Page Limit filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 Exhibit E, #7 Exhibit F, #8 Exhibit G, #9 Proposed Order)(Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 9/29/2011)
Exhibit B
Apple v. Samsung - Motions related to PI Reply
Page 1 of 2
------------------------------------------From: Victoria Maroulis[SMTP:VICTORIAMAROULIS@QUINNEMANUEL.COM]
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2011 6:46:19 AM
To: Bartlett, Jason R.; Sara Jenkins; Melissa Chan
Cc: Overson, Wesley E.; Hung, Richard S. J.
Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung - Motions related to PI Reply
Auto forwarded by a Rule
Samsung concurs with filing under seal.
30 pages is excessive as it doubles Apple’s reply, particularly considering that Samsung approved
significant number of additional pages for Apple’s moving papers. Solely to avoid motion practice,
Samsung will agree to a reply brief of 25 pages.
I have not received a response to my correspondence regarding whether Apple will submit reply
declarations. Please respond at your earliest convenience.
Victoria Maroulis
Partner,
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
650-801-5022 Direct
650.801.5000 Main Office Number
650.801.5100 FAX
victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com
www.quinnemanuel.com
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named
above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you
have received this document in error and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you
have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.
From: Bartlett, Jason R. [mailto:JasonBartlett@mofo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 7:42 PM
To: Victoria Maroulis; Sara Jenkins; Melissa Chan
Cc: Overson, Wesley E.; Hung, Richard S. J.
Subject: Apple v. Samsung - Motions related to PI Reply
Counsel,
Apple plans to request leave to file a 30 page reply in support of the motion for preliminary injunction.
Apple also plans to file its reply and supporting papers under seal because it will contain information
9/29/2011
Apple v. Samsung - Motions related to PI Reply
Page 2 of 2
designated as confidential.
Will Samsung stipulate to the extra pages and the filing under seal?
Sincerely,
Jason R. Bartlett
Morrison & Foerster
425 Market St.
San Francisco, CA 94105
Direct: 415.268.6615
--------------------------------------------------------------------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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
9/29/2011
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?