Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
502
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Proposed Order, #3 Exhibit Apple's Opposition to Samsung's Motion to Compel, #4 Mazza Decl ISO Apple's Opposition to Samsung's Motion to Compel, #5 Ex. 1 to Mazza Decl ISO Apple's Opposition to Samsung's Motion to Compel, #6 Ex. 2 to Mazza Decl ISO Apple's Opposition to Samsung's Motion to Compel, #7 Proposed Order Denying Samsung's Motion to Compel, #8 Apple's Opposition to Samsung's Motion to Permit Samsung's Expert Itay Sherman to Review Design Materials Designated Under the Protective Order, #9 Kim Declaration ISO Apple's Opposition to Samsung's Motion to Permit Samsung's Expert Itay Sherman to Review Design Materials Designated Under the Protective Order, #10 Ex. 1 to the Kim Declaration, #11 Ex. 2 to the Kim Declaration, #12 Ex. 3 to the Kim Declaration, #13 Ex. 4 to the Kim Declaration, #14 Ex. 5 to the Kim Declaration, #15 Ex. 6 to the Kim Declaration, #16 Ex. 7 to the Kim Declaration, #17 Ex. 8 to the Kim Declaration, #18 Ex. 9 to the Kim Declaration, #19 Proposed Order Denying Samsung's Motion to Permit Samsung's Expert Itay Sherman to Review Design Materials Designated Under the Protective Order)(Hung, Richard) (Filed on 12/15/2011)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
hmcelhinny@mofo.com
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
mjacobs@mofo.com
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
jtaylor@mofo.com
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
atucher@mofo.com
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
rhung@mofo.com
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
jasonbartlett@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
10
WILLIAM F. LEE
william.lee@wilmerhale.com
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 526-6000
Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: (650) 858-6000
Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
11
12
Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
SAN JOSE DIVISION
17
APPLE INC.,
Case No.
11-cv-01846-LHK
18
Plaintiff,
19
v.
20
21
22
23
24
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York
corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company.,
DECLARATION OF MIA MAZZA
IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S
OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
AND THINGS
Defendants.
25
26
PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
27
28
DECLARATION OF MIA MAZZA ISO APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO COMPEL
11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3083887
1
I, Mia Mazza, declare as follows:
2
1.
I am an attorney with the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel for Apple
3
Inc. (“Apple”). I am licensed to practice law in the State of California. Unless otherwise
4
indicated, I have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein or understand them to be true
5
from members of my litigation team. I make this declaration in support of Apple’s Opposition to
6
Samsung’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Things.
7
2.
Apple’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction was heard on October 13, 2011. Since
8
the Preliminary Injunction hearing, Apple has produced approximately 12,239 documents totaling
9
more than a million pages in its offensive case against Samsung. Apple has produced for
10
inspection numerous CAD files, native and printed source code files, Director files on a computer
11
capable of viewing them, and models and prototypes requested by Samsung in connection with
12
inventor depositions. Samsung deposed 17 Apple patent prosecutors in the month of October
13
2011 and 31 Apple inventors in the months of October and November 2011.
14
3.
Since the Preliminary Injunction hearing, Samsung has produced about 650
15
documents, totaling less than 29,000 pages. About 22,000 of those pages were produced in the
16
past week. On November 22 and 23, 2011, Apple noticed nine depositions of Samsung
17
witnesses. On December 6, 2011, Apple noticed an additional 28 depositions of Samsung
18
witnesses. To date, Samsung has provided only one date for one of these depositions, despite
19
Apple’s having requested dates in various letters, emails, and meet-and-confer calls. Samsung
20
provided that date on the evening of December 14, 2011.
21
4.
Other than the Apple v. Motorola documents related to Samsung’s claim
22
construction briefing, Samsung has not requested that Apple substantially complete its production
23
of the documents and things that are the subject of Samsung’s motion to compel by any date
24
certain. During the parties’ December 7, 2011, meet-and-confer call, Samsung specifically
25
declined to set any deadlines for substantial completion, instead stating that Samsung wanted to
26
know that Apple was working diligently to search for and produce the requested information.
27
Even Samsung’s December 10, 2011, letter to Apple listing thirteen items Samsung believed were
28
DECLARATION OF MIA MAZZA ISO APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO COMPEL
11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3083887
1
1
“ripe for lead-counsel meet-and-confer” did not include any request that Apple substantially
2
complete its production of the listed items by any particular point in time.
3
5.
Apple produced documents from the Apple v. Motorola cases as requested by
4
Samsung, on November 23, 2011 in the ITC 796 action, and again on December 1, 2011 in the
5
N.D. Cal. action. The production was approximately 990 documents numbering approximately
6
45,000 pages. Shortly after the production was made, Samsung identified a document that
7
appeared to have redactions of Apple confidential information rather than third party confidential
8
information. Apple immediately located a properly redacted copy and produced it on December
9
8, 2011.
10
6.
On December 11, 2011, Samsung identified four items it believed may have been
11
missing from the Apple v. Motorola production. First, Samsung requested the witness statement,
12
testimony, and cross-examination of John Elias. Upon investigation, I was informed by counsel
13
for Apple in the Motorola cases that
14
15
16
Jeffrey Brown. Upon investigation, I was informed by outside counsel for Apple in the Motorola
17
18
19
20
21
Motorola cases that these materials contain significant third-party confidential business
22
23
24
brief.” Upon investigation, I received a copy of this brief from counsel for Apple in the Motorola
25
26
27
28
7.
On December 8, 2011, Apple produced ALPNDC-X0000006115 through
APLNDC-X0000006144, which were the documents attached as Exhibit 8 to the Declaration of
Erik J. Olson in Support of Apple’s Opposition to Samsung’s Motion to Compel, dated
DECLARATION OF MIA MAZZA ISO APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO COMPEL
11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3083887
2
1
October 31, 2011. These documents were not marked with any confidentiality designation when
2
produced.
3
8.
During the parties’ December 7, 2011, meet-and-confer call, Apple informed
4
Samsung that it would be producing source code for the Mac OS 10.0 operating system, an Apple
5
computer capable of running it, and source code for the SuperClock system, on or about
6
December 15, 2011.
7
8
9.
On or about December 15, 2011, Apple will produce at Morrison & Foerster’s Palo
Alto office the following items for Samsung’s inspection:
9
An Apple computer specially configured and adapted to run the 10 year old Mac
10
OS 10.0 operating system.
11
Portions of the Mac Operating System 10.0 and 10.1 operating system source code
12
believed to relate to the functions described in Samsung’s motion.
13
Portions of the Mac Operating System 7.5—more than 15 years old—believed to
14
correspond to the
15
16
17
10. Apple’s attorneys have been diligently meeting and following up with the Industrial
Design team about the design discovery items Samsung’s seeks.
18
19
11. During the parties’ December 7, 2011, meet-and-confer call, Apple advised Samsung
that
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF MIA MAZZA ISO APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO COMPEL
11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3083887
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
14. Apple has agreed and already explained to Samsung that it will produce the CAD files
showing the final design of the Apple Cinema Display.
12
15. Many months ago, Apple produced to Samsung all CAD files relating to the original
13
iPhone project. Pursuant to the Court’s order, Apple re-produced the CAD data to Samsung via
14
an escrow facility at the end of September. The data contains a CAD drawing of
15
16
17
Apple has no additional CAD files to produce relating to the original
iPhone, and Apple has already agreed to take additional steps
18
19
20
21
22
23
16. Apple has agreed to conduct a reasonable search for
24
25
26
27
28
17. Apple has already stipulated that the
Attached as Exhibits A & B
hereto are true and correct copies of excerpts from the prosecution history of U.S. Patent No.
DECLARATION OF MIA MAZZA ISO APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO COMPEL
11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3083887
4
1
D504,889.
2
3
18.
4
5
6
7
8
9
19.
10
11
12
20. Apple has agreed to supplement its responses to Interrogatory No. 1.
13
21. Apple has agreed to produce final CAD files for each item of purported prior art
14
sought by Samsung in its motion.
15
Apple will produce documents sufficient to show what it looked like. The parties have not
16
specifically discussed any additional items that Samsung believes it has good reason to request of
17
Apple regarding that alleged prior art. Samsung clarified in meet-and-confer communications
18
that it is only seeking information regarding the external appearance of these displays.
19
if CAD is no longer available
22. In a letter dated November 8, 2011, Samsung asked Apple to produce “all documents
20
related to Apple Cinema Display, including but not limited to notebooks, diagrams, progress
21
reports, studies, internal memoranda, contracts for services, and communications created or used
22
in connection with the design of Apple Cinema Display, as well as any related models or
23
prototypes.” Apple responded on November 10, 2011, asserting its disagreement that the Apple
24
Cinema Display monitor is prior art, and stating further that Samsung’s “request for ‘all
25
documents related to’ the monitor is overbroad and unduly burdensome given the alleged
26
relevance of the device.”
27
28
23. Apple will add
to its search term list applied to all Industrial Design
inventors and produce any relevant information located in that search.
DECLARATION OF MIA MAZZA ISO APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO COMPEL
11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3083887
5
1
24. Apple has already:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
25. Samsung deposed
12
13
14
15
16
26. On November 8, 2011, Apple received a letter from Samsung stating that it had
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
27. During the December 7, 2011 meet-and-confer call, Apple advised Samsung that
24
Apple will add
25
inventors and produce any relevant, responsive documents located as a result of that search.
26
Apple will also search for the term
27
that no additional models are located elsewhere.
to its list of search terms applied to the documents of all Industrial Design
in Apple’s physical model archive database to confirm
28
DECLARATION OF MIA MAZZA ISO APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO COMPEL
11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3083887
6
1
28. In a November 8, 2011 letter, Samsung asserted,
2
3
requested that Apple produce
4
5
6
7
Apple responded on November 10, stating that although it is “plain that Apple’s asserted
8
9
10
11
29. Apple will add the terms
to Apple’s list of search terms applied to
12
Industrial Design inventor documents, and produce all relevant, responsive documents located as
13
a result of that search. Apple will also run the terms
14
archive database to confirm that no additional models are located elsewhere.
15
in its physical model
30.
16
17
18
19
20
21
31. Under the terms of the production of the models, which Samsung accepted,
22
Samsung’s representatives were permitted to take photographs of the models, but the memory
23
cards containing the photos were to be provided to Apple counsel. Apple subsequently produced
24
high quality copies of these photographs to Samsung, with proper confidentiality designations and
25
Bates numbers in the file format agreed by the parties.
26
32.
27
28
DECLARATION OF MIA MAZZA ISO APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO COMPEL
11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3083887
7
1
2
3
33. Apple has already produced excerpts of sketchbooks of designers involved in the
original iPhone and tablet projects that are the subject of the asserted hardware design patents.
34. Apple has not refused to produce deposition transcripts that are relevant to this case.
4
For the inventors of the patents in suit, it has already produced prior testimony that bears a
5
technological nexus to the patents at issue in this case. It is willing to produce similar transcripts
6
for other deponents. Apple is involved in consumer class actions, employment cases, antitrust,
7
and even personal-injury cases. Even for patent disputes, the patents at issue are often unrelated
8
to the patents here. Apple’s dispute with Kodak, for example, involves digital imaging patents.
9
35. Samsung has asserted during the parties’ meet and confer sessions that it is entitled to
10
prior deposition transcripts in a broad range of case types due to the potential impeachment value
11
of those transcripts.
12
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
13
Executed this 15th day of December, 2011 at San Francisco, California.
14
15
/s/ Mia Mazza
Mia Mazza
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF MIA MAZZA ISO APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO COMPEL
11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3083887
8
1
2
ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE
I, Richard S.J. Hung, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this
3
Declaration. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Mia Mazza has
4
concurred in this filing.
5
Dated: December 15, 2011
/s/ Richard S.J. Hung
Richard S.J. Hung
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DECLARATION OF MIA MAZZA ISO APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO COMPEL
11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3083887
9
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?