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)

Exhibit A

quinn emanuel trial lawyers | los angeles
865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]

January 8, 2012
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mia Mazza
Morrison & Foerster, LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Re:

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

Dear Mia:
Thank you for your letter.
I note that it fails to respond to a number of issues that we discussed during the meeting on
Thursday.
Also, among other representations and characterizations in the letter, your description of what
happened at the meet-and-confer in Section “G” is false as you have worded it. During the
meeting, Mr. McElhinny told us in no uncertain terms, that Apple would not provide any
witnesses for any topic in our Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice and that we had to “withdraw” it;
and that Apple would not provide any additional time with Ive. As you know, the proposal you
advanced during that meeting, and that you reference in your letter, only dealt with the 49 Apple
witnesses noticed personally, and specifically excluded Jonathan Ive and the 30(b)(6) witnesses.
Please let me know immediately if Apple is now changing its position with respect to the
deposition of Ive and to the noticed 30(b)(6) topics, and if so, specifically what its position now
is.

quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
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]
SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | 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]
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Bldg., 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]

Additionally, regarding the Protective Order, and your newly unveiled proposal in response to
the “confidential” tier we proposed almost two weeks ago, you have provided no rationale
whatsoever for Apple’s insistence on full disclosure and objection for documents and other
materials falling within the “confidential” tier. Why should Samsung have to disclose
consultants that are merely looking at “confidential” documents? Consultants’ identities are
attorney work product, and there is no reason that Samsung should have to disclose their
identities or other information and subject them to an objection process with respect to
“confidential” documents, especially when they have already agreed to be bound by the
provisions of the Protective Order by signing a copy of Exhibit A; and are not a current
officer, director, or employee of a Party, nor anticipated at the time of retention to become an
officer, director or employee of a Party.
That said, we will agree to the confidential tier with the “edit” you describe in your letter if you
will agree that Itay Sherman may see any design-related items that are designated “Confidential.”
Please let me know Apple’s position on this proposal immediately to avoid wasteful motion
practice.
Kind regards,
/s/
Diane C. Hutnyan

2