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 12
REDACTED VERSION

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

October 19, 2011

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
NEW YORK, SAN FRANCISCO,
LOS ANGELES, PALO ALTO,
SACRAMENTO, SAN DIEGO,
DENVER, NORTHERN VIRGINIA,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
TOKYO, LONDON, BRUSSELS,
BEIJING, SHANGHAI, HONG KONG

Writer’s Direct Contact
415.268.6096
[e-mail]

Via E-Mail
Rachel Kassabian
Quinn Emanuel
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Re:

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. Case No. 11-cv-1846 LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Rachel:
This letter concerns the issues raised by Morrison & Foerster at the parties’ meet and confer
session of October 19, 2011. Given the pace of the discussion, we were unable to cover
many of the issues on our agenda, including the issues raised in my October 13th letter
(concerning Apple’s document production requests) and the issues raised in my October 17th
letter (concerning your responses to Apple’s interrogatory requests). From our discussion,
we understand that you plan to respond to those issues in a letter by the end of the week. We
request that the parties’ schedule a separate meet and confer session to discuss those broader
discovery issues. The document issues (for both sides) will take more than a 20-minute
window to go through. Are you available on Monday morning?
For the past two weeks, Apple has asked you to adequately explain the steps you took to
comply with the Court’s September 28th Order. As we indicated to you in our October 10th
and 13th letter, your court-ordered Transparency Statements1 are anything but transparent.
Among other things:

1

Samsung’s Amended Identification of Custodians, Litigation Hold Notices and Search Terms served October
10, 2011.

sf-3060866

Rachel Kassabian
October 19, 2011
Page Two
During the call, you disagreed with our position that you were required to search for nonU.S. market documents, claiming that if we wanted such documents we should have moved
for clarification of the Order. However, the Order as written is clearly not limited to U.S.
market surveys. If you had wanted to modify the Order, it was your responsibility to ask for
clarification before your deadline for compliance expired. Similarly, when I asked you to
identify which individuals on your Transparency Statement are responsible for survey
documents, and to state whether you had searched and produced their documents, you
refused to do so unless Apple agreed to answer any questions Samsung may have in the
future regarding the custodians in its production. I agreed to answer reasonable questions on
Apple custodians in the future, and repeated the specific question about your compliance
with the Court’s Order several times. In response, you rephrased the question, but did not
answer it. We are entitled to an explanation of what steps you took to comply with the
Court’s Order so that we can decide whether it will be necessary to move for sanctions. We
ask that you provide us a time when your lead counsel is available to discuss these issues.
We also complained that you limited your search of Lee Don-Joo’s email to a one month
period, ending on March 31, 2011.
There were two issues upon which the parties were able to reach consensus. Apple has
agreed to provide you with explanations for the redactions on the specific documents
identified in Sara Jenkins’ October 12th letter; and you have agreed to provide us with
explanations for the redactions on the specific documents identified in our October 10th
letter. I believe that you also agreed to produce the attachments that were missing from your
production (an issue identified in our October 10th letter). We propose that the parties
exchange explanations for redactions by this Friday, October 21, and that Samsung update its
production with attachments by Tuesday, October 25.
Finally, in future meet and confer sessions, we ask that you please be prepared to discuss the
items on the agenda. It is not an efficient use of our time when you need to try to find others
who are not on the phone to address the issues that are raised on the agenda.
Best regards,
/s/
Wesley E. Overson

sf-3060866