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

Filing 321

Declaration of Jason R. Bartlett in Support of 319 Apple's Motion to Compel Samsung to Produce Documents and Provide Responsive Answers to Propounded Discovery filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M)(Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 10/18/2011) Modified on 10/19/2011 linking entry to document #319 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
Exhibit A MoRRrso* l"oERSrER 425 Menrrr Srnsrr MORRISON & ¡OERSTER IIP SeN Fnexcrsco NIV YORK, SAN TRANCISCO, CerrronNre 94to5-2482 Tr rr prr o N ¡:4r5.268.7 ooo Fecs r rur r r¡ : 4t5. z6 8.7 5zz LOS ANGTLES, PA1O ÀITO, www. MoFo. co SAN DIEGO, WASHINGTON, D.C. NORTHTRN VIRGINIA, DENVER, SACRAMENTO, WAI,NUT CRETK TOKYO, LONDON, BRUSSETS, BTIJING, SHANGHAI, HONG KONG M Writer's Direct Contact July l, 2011 415.268.7455 Via E-Mail and US Mail Charles K. Verhoeven, Esq. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sulivan, LLP 50 California Street, 22ndFloor SanFrancisco, CA 94105 Re: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., et al., Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK (lt{.D. Cal.) Dear Charlie: As you know, Samsung is required to preserve evidence that might be relevant to the pending lawsuits between Apple and Samsung (and its related entities). We write to confirm that Samsung has taken steps to preserve such evidence and is, in fact, doing so. Categories of evidence requiring preservation include documents concerning Samsung's imitation of, copying of or benchmarking against Apple's products. Such evidence - and similar evidence confirming that Samsung knew of, used, or referred to Apple's products, designs, or intellectual property when developing its own products - would be highly relevant to the pending actions. Much of the relevant evidence in Samsung's possession may be electronic, such as electronic Because electronic documents are easily deleted, modified, and comrpted, please take the necessary steps to ensure that relevant electronic documents are not deleted or changed. mail. In recent litigation, Samsung has demonstrated its inability to preserve electronic evidence even after litigation has begun. See, e.g., Mosaid Techs., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 348 F. Supp. 2d 332, 336,340 (D.N.J. 2004) (sanctioning Samsung and related entities for destroying relevant electronic mail after lawsuit filed); Fractus, S.A. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Case No. 09-cv-203 (E.D. Tex.) (trial transcript referring to Samsung's continued policy of deleting electronic mail every two weeks, even after lawsuit frled). sf-3014896 MoRRrso* I "oE RsrE R Charles K. Verhoeven, Esq. July l, 2011 Page Two In view of Samsung's prior difficulties with document preservation and, in the Mosaid case, the court's finding that Samsung had lost or destroyed relevant evidence, we trust that Samsung has undertaken measures to remedy these deficiencies. Michael A. Jacobs sf-3014896

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?