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

Filing 473

RESPONSE (re #464 MOTION to Shorten Time Apple's Motion to Shorten Time for Briefing and Hearing on Apple's Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Things ) filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Declaration of Melissa N. Chan, #2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to the Chan Declaration, #3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 to the Chan Declaration, #4 Exhibit Exhibit 3 to the Chan Declaration, #5 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 12/9/2011)

EXHIBIT 1

quinn emanuel

trial lawyers | silicon valley

555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]

WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
[e-mail]

December 6, 2011
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mia Mazza
Morrison & Foerster
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Re:

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

Dear Mia:
I write in response to your letter dated December 5, 2011 concerning Apple’s stated intention to
file a motion to compel unless Samsung “substantially completes” production of several broad
categories of documents in less than two weeks.
Apple lacks any basis for its contention that discovery motions are necessary at this juncture,
given Samsung’s significant commitments to providing Apple with the documents it needs to
proceed with its claims and defenses in this case. We have agreed to produce the three
categories of documents that Apple requests, subject to Samsung's written objections. We have
agreed to prioritize the requested documents in our collection and review efforts and to expedite
production of these documents. We have agreed to make our best efforts to substantially
complete production of the requested documents before Apple’s arbitrary deadline of December
15, 2011. Your letter fails to articulate why these commitments are not “sufficiently firm . . . as
to either scope or accountability.” With regard to the written report described in your letter, we
have already committed to proceed in a transparent and cooperative manner. We have agreed to
disclose the custodians we search and the search terms we use, as we have done previously. We
have agreed to consider reasonable requests by Apple to search additional custodians or apply
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES | 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
NEW YORK | 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SAN FRANCISCO | 50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
CHICAGO | 500 W Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
WASHINGTON, DC | 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 825, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2400 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
LONDON | 16 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
02198.51855/4494575TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Building, 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
1
MANNHEIM | Erzbergerstraße 5, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MOSCOW | Voentorg Building, 3rd Floor, 10 Vozdvizhenka Street, Moscow 125009, Russia | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]

Mia Mazza
December 6, 2011
additional search terms—as we are doing now, with respect to the term “Apple” and related
terms. We have agreed to address any specific questions or concerns relating to our search
methods, such as those raised in Sam Maselli’s December 2, 2011, letter. Apple has no basis to
suggest that these commitments are inadequate, and indeed, they are not. Nor has Apple
committed to doing anything more itself.
Apple’s demands are particularly troublesome in light of Apple’s repeated refusal “to justify its
reasons for needing certain categories of documents on an expedited basis.” Your letter makes
no attempt to do so other than simply parroting statements that have already been discredited.
For example, Samsung has satisfied its obligation under Patent Local Rule 3-4(a) to produce
source code and other documents sufficient to show the operation of product features that Apple
charted in its infringement contentions. Samsung rejects Apple’s contention that all of the
documents identified in Wes Overson’s November 28, 2011 letter—including “requests for
quotation,” “bills of materials,” documents concerning non-infringing alternative designs, and
design changes that Samsung has or will made in response to this lawsuit—are necessary to
show the operation of the allegedly infringing product features . We note also that Patent Local
Rule 3-4(a) applies equally to Apple, yet during our weekly meet and confer call, counsel for
Apple stated only that it was “prepared” to produce some unspecified amount of source code at
some point in the indeterminate future. Further, Apple again asserts that “some” of the source
code and technical documents are needed for claim construction, despite the well-established
legal authority that such information is irrelevant for such purposes. Apple has neither cited any
legal authority in support of its position nor made any attempt to distinguish the authority cited
by Samsung.
Further, Samsung fails to see any basis for Apple’s contention that consumer survey documents
are relevant to the depositions of individuals who are not responsible for marketing the Samsung
accused products, nor has Apple identified any other credible basis for demanding their
immediate production. Finally, Apple has no basis for claiming that documents responsive to the
“Apple” search term must be produced in the next eight days with respect to dozens of
employees. Not one of these depositions is even calendared.
To be clear, as we have already stated, Samsung will make its best efforts to substantially
complete its production of these three categories of documents by December 15, or in any event
by the Winter Holidays. Unless you tell us otherwise within the next 48 hours, we will presume
that Apple will provide a reciprocal production by this same deadline. If Apple insists on filing a
baseless motion to compel seeking documents Samsung has already agreed to timely produce—
and is in the midst of producing right now—Samsung will ask Judge Grewal to order Apple to
make a reciprocal production by the same date.

02198.51855/4494575.1

2

Mia Mazza
December 6, 2011

Very truly yours,
/s/
Rachel Herrick Kassabian
02198.51855/4494575.1

02198.51855/4494575.1

3