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

Filing 467

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Motion to Compel, #2 Exhibit Mazza Declaration, #3 Exhibit Ex. 1 to Mazza Decl, #4 Exhibit Ex. 2 to Mazza Decl, #5 Exhibit Ex. 3 to Mazza Decl, #6 Exhibit Ex. 4 to Mazza Decl, #7 Exhibit Ex. 5 to Mazza Decl, #8 Exhibit Ex. 6 to Mazza Decl, #9 Exhibit Ex. 7 to Mazza Decl, #10 Exhibit Ex. 8 to Mazza Decl, #11 Exhibit Ex. 9 to Mazza Decl, #12 Exhibit Ex. 10 to Mazza Decl, #13 Exhibit Ex. 11 to Mazza Decl, #14 Exhibit Ex. 12 to Mazza Decl, #15 Exhibit Ex. 13 to Mazza Decl, #16 Exhibit Ex. 14 to Mazza Decl, #17 Exhibit Ex. 15 to Mazza Decl, #18 Exhibit Ex. 16 to Mazza Decl, #19 Exhibit Ex. 17 to Mazza Decl, #20 Exhibit Ex. 18 to Mazza Decl, #21 Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 12/8/2011) Modified on 12/15/2011 (feriab, COURT STAFF). (Attachment 10 replaced on 12/21/2011) (sp, COURT STAFF). (Attachment 16 replaced on 12/21/2011) (sp, COURT STAFF). PURSUANT TO ORDER #523 DOCUMENTS 467-10 AND 467-16 REMOVED. Modified on 12/21/2011 (sp, COURT STAFF).

EXHIBIT 10
REDACTED VERSION

425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO
CALIFORNIA 94105-2482
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: 415 268 7522

MO RRI SO N & F O E RST E R L LP
N E W YO RK , SAN F RAN C I SCO ,
LO S AN G E LE S , P ALO ALTO ,
SAC RAME N T O , SAN D I E G O ,
D E N VE R , N O RT H E RN VI RG I N I A
WASH I N G T O N , D C

,

T O K YO , L O N D O N , BRU SSE L S ,
BE I JI N G , SH AN G H AI , H O N G K O N G

WWW.MOFO.COM

October 10, 2011

Writer’s Direct Contact
415.268.6096
[e-mail]

Via E-Mail
Kevin Johnson
Victoria Maroulis
Sara Jenkins
Quinn Emanuel
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Re: Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., & Samsung Telecomm., LLC,
Case No. 11-cv-1846 LHK (N.D. Cal.); CONFIDENTIAL—Subject to Protective Order
Dear Sara, Kevin and Victoria:
I write in response to your October 10, 2011 letter, and to the Amended Identification of
Custodians, Litigation Hold Notices, and Search Terms (Samsung’s “Amended Statement”).
Your letter and Amended Statement are still unclear and leave several important problems
unaddressed. We will respond to your questions about Apple’s production in a separate
letter.
1.

Deleted Text and Missing Attachments

Many of the documents you produced include unexplained redactions of large amounts of
text. Examples include:

sf-3056933

Kevin Johnson
Victoria Maroulis
Sara Jenkins
October 10, 2011
Page Two

Samsung has produced numerous other redacted documents. Please produce full versions of
all such documents or provide a valid explanation of the redactions.
You have also produced numerous emails that refer to attachments, but the attachments were
not produced. For example,

These attachments do not appear to have been
produced. There appear to be numerous other missing attachments, such as
Please produce all missing attachments.
2.

Production of Lee Don-Joo’s Custodial Files

The Court ordered Samsung to search for and produce from Lee Don-Joo’s custodial files
“all documents relating to the redesign of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 following Apple’s
announcement of the iPad 2 on or about March 2, 2011.” Your Amended Statement now
indicates that you
, despite the Court’s Order that you produce “all”
documents related to the redesign of the Galaxy Tab 10.1 following the announcement of the
iPad2. Please identify what documents and files were searched, and explain why you applied
a date restriction that was not included in the Court’s Order.
3.

Production of Survey Documents

The Court ordered Samsung to produce survey documents referencing Apple products from
any central file, or the custodial files of any individuals with specific responsibility for
surveying customers. While your letter claims that Korean files were searched, neither your
statement nor your letter identify what those files are, how they were searched, or what
search terms were used. Moreover, while your Exhibit V
state that these files were searched or, if they were, how that search was conducted and what

sf-3056933

Kevin Johnson
Victoria Maroulis
Sara Jenkins
October 10, 2011
Page Three
search terms were used. Please identify the specific files that were searched and how that
search was conducted.
What custodial files did you search for individuals responsible for surveying customers under
paragraph 3 of the Order? In its Initial Disclosures, Samsung listed Justin Denison and Brian
Rosenberg as individuals responsible for marketing and sales. Apparently, you have t

If that is incorrect, please explain.
4.

Production of Documents Concerning the “Bounce” Feature

I pointed out in my October 8 letter that your search for documents related to “Bounce”
feature claimed by the ’381 utility patent was deficient because it did not include Korean
terms that Samsung’s own designers used in referring to this feature. Your October 10 letter
refers to Samsung’s Amended Statement, but we do not see any relevant amendment. In
particular, the Amended Statement
Are you refusing to conduct searches with the Korean terms that Samsung’s designers used?
5.

Inconsistent Searches

According to your letter, you discontinued using the search term “Apple” during the
document collection process because you wanted to eliminate “an overly burdensome
volume of false positive hits.” There is no reason for Samsung’s designers to refer to
“Apple,” however, unless they thought that Apple products were relevant to their design
work for Samsung. Documents from the files of Samsung’s designers mentioning Apple are
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence and should be
produced.
Your use of inconsistent search terms is also improper.

sf-3056933

u

Kevin Johnson
Victoria Maroulis
Sara Jenkins
October 10, 2011
Page Four
By failing to apply consistent search terms, you have ensured that your
production is not complete.
As previously noted, you have also taken the inconsistent approach of searching for the

the Korean equivalent of “Galaxy” yields numerous references on Korean-language websites
to Samsung’s “Galaxy” line of products.
6.

Failure to Search Files of All Designers

7.

Clarification of Samsung’s Statement

Finally, please explain whether any searches were performed on the custodians in Exhibit V,
apart from those listed in Samsung’s Amended Statement? If so, what were they, how were
they conducted, what search terms were used, and what documents were produced?
We are continuing our review of the documents that Samsung has produced to date and
reserve the right to raise additional issues as a result of our ongoing review.

sf-3056933

e

Kevin Johnson
Victoria Maroulis
Sara Jenkins
October 10, 2011
Page Five
We suggest that we meet and confer on these issues tomorrow. We are available at 11 am.
We can use my call-in number: 1-800-650-4949, passcode 2686096. If that time does not
work, please suggest another time after 11 am tomorrow.

Sincerely,
/s/ Wesley E. Overson
Wesley E. Overson
cc:

Rachel Herrick Kassabian
Melissa Chan
Samuel Maselli
Mark Selwyn
Peter Kolovos

sf-3056933

Michael A. Jacobs
Richard S.J. Hung
Mia Mazza
Matthew I. Kreeger
Jason R. Bartlett
Kristin L. Yohannan