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

Filing 606

EXHIBITS re #602 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re Samsung's January 10, 2012 Filings Exhibit 3 - [Proposed] Public Redacted Version of Samsung's Motion for Clarification filed bySamsung Electronics Co. Ltd.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Exhibit A-J, #3 Exhibit K, #4 Exhibit L, #5 Proposed Order)(Related document(s) #602 ) (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 1/11/2012)

EXHIBIT K

FOERSTER

MORRISON

425

M

IìKìi'r' S flìl il:iT

SÂN II]ìA.NCISCO
c.Al-r

[f

olìNI^

TI]LIIPFIONI|:
ITACSIMII-E:

9

4705 -2482

41

5.2(r8.7000

41,5.268.7 522

Nro¡rRlsoN

& tioltRslfllì

l,l

P

Nllw I ORK, S^ß\ Irlì^NCISCO,
Pi\lO
lo,
l-OS
^l,
^NCIll,tiS,
Sr\Clì^ÀlEN'l O, S^N Dllico,
DENVIR, NORfIIERN VIIIGINIA
w^sil tNC IoN. D,C.

l-oKYO, l,oN DON,

BRUSSF,I-S,

BEIJINC, SHÂNGFIÀI, IìONC KONG

ìuww.MoFo.coM

Writer's Direct Contact

October 7,2011

s) 268-7 4ss
[e-mail]
(41

Vi

a E - Mail

v i ct o r

i

amar

o

uli s @quinnemanue

l.

co

m

Victoria F, Maroulis
Quinn Emanuel
555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Dear Victoria:
6 regarding Apple's production of design
crisp, clear discussions about the scope of Apple's
inventor documents. You and I had
production of design patent-related documents during the preliminary injunction phase of
discovery and reached an agreement that we recited to each other at the time. Your letter
ignores those discussions.

I write in response to your letter of October

Preliminary injunction-related discovery. As you note in your letter, Samsung
served "Requests for Production of Documents and Things Relating to Apple Inc.'s Motion
for a Preliminary Injunction" on July 6,2011. In setting the schedule for preliminary
injunction-related discovery, the Court made clear that such discovery needed to be
"reasonable in scope" and "narowly tailored." (Order Setting Briehng and Hearing
Schedule for Preliminary Injunction Motionat2 (D.N. 115).) Consistent with the
narrowness of this discovery, the Court's order gave Apple a short three-week window to
produce responsive documents. (Id)
You and I and our colleagues met to discuss what you wanted us to do within those
'We
agreed to produce the CAD files, but you also asked us to find a limited
time constraints.
category of "speaking documents," i,e., documents that discussed the product plans for
products relating to design patents. You specifically said you were not seeking emails.

Within these confines and consistent with its discovery obligations, Apple performed
more than a reasonable search for documents from Apple's Industrial Design team.
Members of our core litigation team personally met with Industrial Design team members to
identify documents responsive to your specific requests.

sf-3054756

MORRISON

FOERSTER

Victoria F. Maroulis
October 7,2011
Page Two
We explained in our prior correspondence (e.g., my August ll,2011 letter to
Michael Zeller) the lengths to which we went to make CAD files available for review.
We further documented Samsung's unwillingness to take advantage of the availability of
these files. We also identified and produced "ANPP" documents. These are documents
created during Apple's new product development process.
The only issue that arose after our July 20 meeting was the production of
sketchbooks. You asked for their production after Mr. Stringer's 30(bX6) deposition. V/e
resisted. Samsung moved to compel production of relevant pages from the designer's
sketchbooks and asked for nothing more. As you are aware, Apple searched for and
produced those sketchbook pages pursuant to the Court's order.
Aside from the sketchbook issue, at no time have you said that we did not produce
what you asked for during the preliminary injunction discovery phase.

General discovery. The parties now face general discovery. This necessarily is
broacier in scope than the "narrowly tailored" preliminary injunction discovery that Judge
Koh ordered in July, which allowed Apple only a three-week window to make its production.
As part of this general discovery, Apple is performing searches for documents that
are responsive to Samsung's recent discovery requests. Some of the documents located as
parl of this process also may be responsive to Samsung's preliminary injunction discovery
requests. This does not mean, however, that Apple has not done what you and I specifically
agreed would be done during the preliminary injunction phase of Apple's discovery.

All I said at Tuesday night's hearing was that we did not

have previous litigation
collections to rely on for design patent inventors, as those patents have not previously been
litigated in cases where discovery was sought. That has nothing to do with whether Apple
complied with our agreement on preliminary injunction discovery.

Victoria, this is going to be a long discovery process. I hope we don't need to take
extreme measures and record every agreement we reach in a signed written instrument filed
with the Court in order to avoid ambushes,
Sincerely,

Michael A. Jacobs

sf-3054756