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)

Download PDF
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?