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

Filing 61

Declaration of GRANT L. KIM IN SUPPORT OF APPLES OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNGS MOTION TO COMPEL EXPEDITED DISCOVERY filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Ex 1, #2 Exhibit Ex 2, #3 Exhibit Ex 3, #4 Exhibit Ex 4, #5 Exhibit Ex 5, #6 Exhibit Ex 6, #7 Exhibit Ex 7, #8 Exhibit Ex 8, #9 Exhibit Ex 9, #10 Exhibit Ex 10, #11 Exhibit Ex 11, #12 Exhibit Ex 12, #13 Exhibit Ex 13, #14 Exhibit Ex 14, #15 Exhibit Ex 15, #16 Exhibit Ex 16, #17 Exhibit Ex 17, #18 Exhibit Ex 18, #19 Exhibit Ex 19, #20 Exhibit Ex 20, #21 Exhibit Ex 21, #22 Exhibit Ex 22, #23 Exhibit Ex 23, #24 Exhibit Ex 24, #25 Exhibit Ex 25, #26 Exhibit Ex 26, #27 Exhibit Ex 27, #28 Exhibit Ex 28, #29 Exhibit Ex 29, #30 Exhibit Ex 30)(Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 6/7/2011)

Exhibit 2

425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO
CALIFORNIA 94105-2482
TELEPHONE: [phone]
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

Writer’s Direct Contact
415.268.6615
[e-mail]

May 31, 2011

Via E-Mail
Victoria F. Maroulis
Quinn Emanuel
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065-2139
Re:

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., et al.
Case No. 11-cv-1846-LHK

Dear Victoria:
The motion that you filed late Friday night mischaracterizes the record in a number of ways,
as explained below, which we will point out in our opposition. We encourage you to correct
or withdraw your motion before then.
First, Apple has never denied Samsung reciprocal expedited discovery. At the April 12th
hearing, Apple specifically offered to consider the discovery requests that Mr. Verhoeven
identified to the Court as potentially relevant. I sent you a letter confirming that on May 20.
On May 23, I joined a telephone conference with Mr. Briggs to define a reasonable and
specific scope for reciprocal discovery, and was prepared to discuss the categories identified
during the hearing. To my surprise, Mr. Briggs explained that Samsung is no longer seeking
the discovery that Mr. Verhoeven requested during the hearing. Instead, Mr. Briggs said that
the only discovery Samsung seeks is Apple’s unreleased products in development.
As explained on the telephone conference and in my letter of May 24, Samsung’s sole
request for Apple’s unreleased products in development is not relevant to Apple’s claims or
preliminary injunction motion. Apple is not relying on a likelihood of confusion based on

sf-3001718

Victoria F. Maroulis
May 31, 2011
Page Two
Apple’s future products. Indeed, I made it clear in my call with Mr. Briggs that Apple will
not rely on its future products in support of its preliminary injunction motion.
Second, Samsung points to Apple’s proposed schedule for reciprocal discovery promptly
following any motion for preliminary injunction as evidence that Apple is refusing expedited
discovery now. Again, this is not true. Apple has proposed that the parties make narrowly
tailored discovery requests promptly after the filing of a preliminary injunction motion. That
is an offer of discovery, not a refusal. Apple has been, and continues to be, open to
considering reasonable requests for expedited discovery of relevant information (whether
now or following the filing of a preliminary injunction motion).

Sincerely,

Jason R. Bartlett

sf-3001718