Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
604
EXHIBITS re #602 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re Samsung's January 10, 2012 Filings Exhibit 2 - [Proposed] Public Redacted Version of Samsung's Renewed Motion to Compel filed bySamsung Electronics Co. Ltd.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Trac Declaration, #2 Declaration Hutnyan Declaration, #3 Exhibit A, #4 Exhibit B, #5 Exhibit C, #6 Exhibit D, #7 Exhibit E, #8 Exhibit F, #9 Exhibit G, #10 Proposed Order)(Related document(s) #602 ) (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 1/11/2012)
425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO
CALIFORNIA 94105-2482
TELEPHONE: 415.268.7000
FACSIMILE: 415.268.7522
MO RRI SO N & F O E RST E R L LP
N E W YO RK , SAN F RAN C I SCO ,
L O S A N G E L E S, P A L O A L T O ,
SAC RAME N T O , SAN D I E G O ,
D E N VE R, N O RT H E RN VI RG I N I A,
WASH I N G T O N , D .C.
T O K YO , L O N D O N , BR U SSE L S,
BE I JI N G , SH AN G H AI , H O N G K O N G
WWW.MOFO.COM
January 2, 2012
Writer’s Direct Contact
415.268.6615
JasonBartlett@mofo.com
Via E-Mail (marissaducca@quinnemanuel.com)
Marissa Ducca
Quinn Emanuel
1299 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 825
Washington, D.C. 20004
Re:
Apple v. Samsung, Case No. 11-cv-1846-LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal.)
Dear Marissa:
This letter responds to yours of December 29, 2011, relating to Apple’s production of
Mac OS v.10.0 source code.
First, Apple has made all reasonable efforts to comply with Samsung’s demand for
Mac OS v. 10.0 code and hardware. As promised, by December 15, Apple provided a
working computer running Mac OS v. 10.0 and selected source code for both OS 10.0 and
10.1. When, after review, Samsung requested that Apple produce additional OS 10.0 source
code, Apple did so within 24 hours. Samsung has reviewed the additional code and has not
made any further requests.
With respect to the working computer, Samsung made no specific requests that a laptop
computer with a brightness button, rather than a desktop computer with a brightness button,
be provided. Samsung’s accusation that Apple made “false” representations to the Court are
absolutely without basis. Apple, unlike Samsung, has more than complied with its discovery
obligations.
Second, Samsung’s demand that Apple sign a stipulation on less than 24 hours notice is
completely unreasonable. As your letter acknowledges, Apple and Samsung discussed the
possibility of a stipulation nine days ago on December 21 and Samsung promised to get back
to Apple quickly with a proposal. Samsung failed to do so until yesterday. We will discuss
Samsung’s proposal with Apple as soon as they return from their holiday break on January 3
and respond in due course.
Samsung does not need Apple to stipulate to obtain the information Samsung seeks,
however. The public release date of software or hardware is information suited to an
sf-3089237
Marissa Ducca
January 2, 2012
Page Two
interrogatory. Samsung could help itself by serving one. Samsung’s demand for a
stipulation appears to be an attempt to end-run the agreed discovery limits in this case.
Sincerely,
/s/ Jason R. Bartlett
Jason R. Bartlett
cc:
Samuel Maselli
S. Calvin Walden
Peter Kolovos
sf-3089237
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?