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

Filing 283

MOTION to Compel Apple to Schedule Inventor Depositions filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. Motion Hearing set for 11/8/2011 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal. Responses due by 10/17/2011. Replies due by 10/24/2011. (Attachments: #1 Kassabian Declaration, #2 Proposed Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 10/1/2011)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)
 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]
 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
 Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
th
 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5 Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Michael T. Zeller (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,

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK



DECLARATION OF RACHEL HERRICK
KASSABIAN IN SUPPORT OF
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO COMPEL
APPLE TO SCHEDULE INVENTOR AND
PROSECUTING ATTORNEY
DEPOSITIONS



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,

Defendant.


Date: Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Place: Courtroom 5, 4th Floor
Judge: Hon. Paul S. Grewal



02198.51855/4376046.2

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
KASSABIAN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO COMPEL

1

I, Rachel Herrick Kassabian, declare:

2

1.

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

3 counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
4 Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”). I submit this declaration in
5 support of Samsung’s Motion to Compel Apple to Schedule Inventor and Prosecuting Attorney
6 Depositions. I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called
7 upon as a witness, I could and would testify to such facts under oath.
8

2.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of transcript excerpts from

9 the August 24, 2011 case management conference before Judge Koh.
10

3.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the Court’s August 25,

11 2011 Case Management Order.
12

4.

On September 2, 2011, my colleague Melissa Chan and I met and conferred with

13 Apple’s counsel on a number of subjects, including the need to schedule Apple’s inventor and
14 prosecuting attorney depositions according to the Court’s schedule. In response to our suggestion
15 that the deposition schedule might need to spill into early November to accommodate the
16 approximately 48 planned depositions, Apple’s counsel indicated that it was not amenable to
17 scheduling any of these depositions beyond the November 1 cutoff. For this reason, we presumed
18 that Apple would promptly secure deposition dates for all 48 of these witnesses (many of whom,
19 like the design patent inventors, are Apple’s own employees) to ensure that the November 1 date
20 would be met.
21

5.

Between September 12 and 16, 2011, Samsung formally noticed the depositions for

22 nearly all 48 inventors and prosecuting attorneys for Apple’s 15 asserted patents. The depositions
23 were noticed for dates between September 19, 2011 and October 20, 2011, although Samsung
24 indicated via cover letter that it was amenable to alternate dates based on the witness’s schedules.
25 Samsung made clear during various meet and confer communications that it wanted the
26 depositions evenly distributed so that no more than one utility and one design patent witness were
27 being deposed each day (to the extent practicable), and that the inventors and prosecuting attorney
28 deposition dates be similarly distributed so that neither group was clumped at any particular date.
02198.51855/4376046.2

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-2KASSABIAN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO COMPEL

1

6.

On September 20, 21, 22, 23, 27, 28 and 29, 2011 the parties exchanged numerous

2 emails and conducted a telephonic meet and confer regarding deposition scheduling issues.
3 During this time, Apple consistently represented that it was working to schedule all the
4 depositions prior to the deadline and was providing dates to Samsung as soon as they were
5 available. Samsung made clear numerous times that it wanted to have design and utility
6 depositions spread out in parallel throughout October.
7

7.

By September 29, 2011, Apple still had not scheduled a deposition date for 14 of its

8 15 design patent inventors, despite Samsung’s repeated requests that these particular depositions
9 were critical and needed to be noticed to commence early in October and be spread throughout the
10 month of October, in an orderly fashion. And for the first time in its communications with
11 Samsung, Apple indicated that day that it would not be offering early dates for design patent
12 inventors, because Apple did not believe the November 1, 2011 deadline should apply to design
13 patent inventors.
14

8.

On September 30, 2011, I joined lead counsel for the parties during a video meet

15 and confer conference. Apple’s lead counsel stated that they would start confirming dates for the
16 design inventor depositions on Monday, October 3, and would not commit to a date certain by
17 which those scheduling efforts would be complete. Further, Apple’s counsel indicated that it
18 intended to pack all 14 of these depositions into an 11-day period between October 20 and 31,
19 2011. When asked why Apple was insisting on scheduling these critical depositions in this
20 prejudicial fashion despite Samsung’s repeated requests, Apple’s counsel stated only that they
21 were not yet ready to produce the documents relevant to these depositions.
22

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is

23 true and correct.
24

Executed in San Francisco, California, on October 1, 2011.

25
26
27

/S/
Rachel Herrick Kassabian

28
02198.51855/4376046.2

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-3KASSABIAN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO COMPEL

1
2

General Order 45 Attestation
I, Victoria F. Maroulis, 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 Rachel Herrick
4 Kassabian has concurred in this filing.
5

/s/ Victoria Maroulis

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4376046.2

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-4KASSABIAN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO COMPEL