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

Filing 599

MOTION for Protective Order Apple's Motion for Entry of Protective Order Regarding Disclosure and Use of Discovery Materials filed by Apple Inc.. Motion Hearing set for 1/18/2012 02:00 PM 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 Maselli Declaration, # 7 Exhibit A, # 8 Exhibit B, # 9 Exhibit C, # 10 Exhibit D)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 1/10/2012)

Download PDF
Exhibit B quinn emanuel trial lawyers | los angeles 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL: (213) 443-3000 FAX: (213) 443-3100 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 (213) 443-3000 FAX (213) 443-3100 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL (212) 849-7000 FAX (212) 849-7100 SAN FRANCISCO | 50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL (415) 875-6600 FAX (415) 875-6700 CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL (312) 705-7400 FAX (312) 705-7401 NEW YORK | 51 WASHINGTON, DC | 1299 LONDON | 16 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 825, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2400 | TEL (202) 538-8000 FAX (202) Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL +44(0) 20 7653 2000 FAX +44(0) 20 7653 2100 TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Building, 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL +81 3 5510 1711 FAX +81 3 5510 1712 MANNHEIM | Erzbergerstraße 5, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL +49(0) 621 43298 6000 FAX +49(0) 621 43298 6100 MOSCOW | Voentorg Building, 3rd Floor, 10 Vozdvizhenka Street, Moscow 125009, Russia | TEL +7 495 797 3666 FAX +7 495 797 3667 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

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?