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 3

quinn emanuel

trial lawyers | silicon valley

555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
[phone]
WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
[e-mail]

June 1, 2011
VIA E-MAIL
Jason R. Bartlett, Esq.
Morrison & Foerster LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Re:

Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Case No. 11-cv-1846-LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Jason:
This responds to your May 31, 2011 letter to Victoria Maroulis. Your assertion that our motion
to compel mischaracterizes the record is incorrect, and we decline your request that we withdraw
it.
While we do not address all the points raised in your letter, one warrants immediate correction.
Your statement that I “explained that Samsung is no longer seeking the discovery that Mr.
Verhoeven requested during the hearing” is wrong. We trust you simply misremember the
conversation. During our May 23 teleconference, I explained that the Court’s May 18, 2011
“Order Granting Limited Expedited Discovery” defined the scope of information the parties were
required to produce to one another during the limited expedited discovery period. This includes
the product samples, packaging, and packaging inserts we requested relating to Apple’s future
iPhone and iPad products. I in no way disavowed Samsung’s right to seek additional discovery
beyond this. Furthermore, Ms. Maroulis’ May 16 letter to you also made clear that Samsung
may request additional discovery from Apple:
Unless and until we learn more information from Apple about what
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES | 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL [phone]

FAX (213)

443-3100

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]
CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL [phone]

FAX (312)

705-7401

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]

products, and on what basis, Apple intends to move for a
preliminary injunction, Samsung cannot narrowly tailor its requests
for additional discovery necessary to defend against Apple’s
motion. Accordingly, by requesting the specific product samples,
packaging and packaging inserts described above, Samsung in no
way waives its right to seek further discovery relevant to
Samsung’s defense against any potential preliminary injunction
motion Apple may file in these proceedings.
Thus, Samsung has explicitly reserved its right – and hereby reiterates its right – to seek
discovery beyond the specific product samples, packaging, and packaging inserts that are the
subject of Samsung’s currently pending motion to compel.
Sincerely,

Todd M. Briggs

02198.51855/4169183.1

2