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).
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
MJacobs@mofo.com
Via E-Mail charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 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?