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

Filing 598

MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Samsung's First Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice filed by Apple Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 1/18/2012 02:00 PM in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal. Responses due by 1/13/2012. (Attachments: #1 McElhinny Declaration, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Mazza Declaration, #5 Exhibit A, #6 Exhibit B, #7 Exhibit C, #8 Exhibit D, #9 Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 1/10/2012)

Exhibit B

quinn emanuel

trial lawyers | los angeles

865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]

January 2, 2012
VIA E-MAIL
Mia Mazza
Morrison & Foerster, LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Re:

Apple v. Samsung Electronics, et al., No. 5:11-cv-01846-LHK (N.D.Cal.)

Dear Mia:
I am writing to follow up on my letter of December 30 regarding the impending lead counsel inperson meet and confer on January 5. Samsung requests that Mr. McElhinny be prepared to
discuss the issues below, for which the parties are currently at an impasse.
•

Apple’s failure to produce a working computer that was in public use before July 10,
2001 that has a brightness adjustment button, and is running the Mac OS X v. 10.0
software that was in public use before July 10, 2001, and Apple’s failure to produce
documents sufficient to show when the code Apple produced became part of a
commercial release or otherwise available to the public (12/29/11 Ducca Letter)

•

Apple’s failure to return Samsung’s memory sticks containing Samsung’s work product,
and Apple’s failure to confirm that it destroyed all of Samsung’s work product (12/29/11
Hutnyan Letter)

•

Apple’s failure to de-designate the pictures of the publicly disclosed features of the 035
mock-up (12/29/11 Hutnyan Letter)
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES | 865

South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
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]
NEW YORK | 51

WASHINGTON, DC | 1299
LONDON | 16

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 825, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2400 | TEL [phone]

FAX (202)

Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Building, 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
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]

538-8100

•

Apple’s failure to produce all relevant source code and technical documents (1/2/12
Hutnyan Letter)

•

Apple’s failure to produce all relevant documents referencing “Samsung” and other
relevant terms (1/2/12 Hutnyan Letter)

•

Apple’s failure to produce all relevant surveys and marketing documents (1/2/12 Hutnyan
Letter)

•

Apple’s failure to produce relevant financial documents (1/2/12 Hutnyan Letter)

•

Apple’s failure to produce all relevant MCOs, working prototypes, and models (12/31/11
Hutnyan Letter)

•

Apple’s failure to produce the NEXT OS source code (12/27/11 Suh Letter)

•

Apple’s failure to produce source code for Mac OS X Tiger (12/28/11 Suh Letter)

•

Apple’s failure to produce an unredacted version of its license with Nokia (12/28/11 Suh
Letter)

•

Apple’s failure to produce all relevant documents identified during Sissie Twiggs’
deposition (12/30/11 Suh Letter)

•

Apple’s failure to produce all relevant sketchbooks (12/30/11 Hall Letter)

•

Apple’s failure to run adequate searches on its inventor documents, and failure to produce
relevant inventor documents that should be found with adequate searches (12/30/11 Hall
Letter)

•

Apple’s improper objections to Samsung’s 30(b)(6) deposition notice (12/30/11 Hutnyan
Letter)

•

Apple’s incomplete responses to certain RFPs (12/30/11 Hutnyan Letter)

•

Apple’s failure to produce Jonathan Ive for another day of deposition (12/31/11 Hutnyan
Letter)

•

Apple’s failure to make available documents and things in the Stanford archive (1/1/12
Suh Letter)

As you know, most of these disputes have been languishing for weeks and have been the subject
of several meet and confers. Since the last meet and confer, we have sent you updated
correspondence about these issues (which we have referenced for your convenience). The
purpose of this correspondence was to respond to the questions you had on that call, and/or to

2

gather more information about Apple's position, so that we can advance these discussions. Yet
we have received neither a substantive response to these letters, nor has any member of Apple's
team proposed a single phone call in response (I am excluding Apple's disingenuous proposal to
talk last week, when we had previously told you we were unavailable for such a discussion).
Apple's sudden silence seems especially odd because you claimed to be prepared to meet and
confer last week, and also because you always seem to be willing and able to make time to talk
about Apple's discovery issues.
Of course, we need not meet and confer again before the lead counsel meet and confer. But given
the number and breadth of the issues, and the busy schedules of our lead counsel, we think it
makes sense to schedule some short calls with the attorneys most knowledgeable about these
issues, to see if we can finally hammer out some agreements and narrow the issues. To that end,
we remain available tomorrow and Wednesday for such calls. Please let us know if and when
you would like to talk about any of them.
Kind regards,
/s/
Diane C. Hutnyan

3