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

Filing 613

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Apple's Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Things, #2 Mazza Declaration ISO Apple's Motion to Compel, #3 Ex A to Mazza Decl, #4 Ex B to Mazza Decl, #5 Ex C to Mazza Decl, #6 Ex D to Mazza Decl, #7 Ex E to Mazza Decl, #8 Ex F to Mazza Decl, #9 Ex G to Mazza Decl, #10 Ex H to Mazza Decl, #11 Ex I to Mazza Decl, #12 Ex J to Mazza Decl, #13 Ex K to Mazza Decl, #14 Ex L to Mazza Decl, #15 Ex M to Mazza Decl, #16 Ex N to Mazza Decl, #17 Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 1/11/2012) Modified on 6/8/2012 (ofr, COURT STAFF).

Exhibit H
Public Version

425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO
CALIFORNIA 94105-2482

MO RRI SO N & F O E RST E R L LP

TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: 415 268 7522

N O RT H E RN VI RG I N I A , D E N VE R ,
SAC RAME N T O , WAL N U T C RE E K

WWW.MOFO.COM

BE I JI N G

January 8, 2012

N E W YO RK , SAN F RAN C I SCO ,
LO S AN G E LE S , P ALO ALTO ,
SAN D I E G O , WASH I N G T O N , D C

T O K YO , L O N D O N , BRU SSE L S ,
, SH AN G H AI , H O N G K O N G

Writer’s Direct Contact
415.268.6024
[e-mail]

Via E-Mail ([e-mail])
Rachel Herrick Kassabian
Quinn Emanuel
555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5fh Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Re:

Apple v. Samsung, Case No. 11-cv-1846-LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Rachel:
This letter regards Samsung’s production of documents related to two surveys specifically
identified in my correspondence to you dated November 29, 2011, and December 9, 2011,
and discussed at last Thursday’s lead trial counsel meeting.
Surveys Regarding Preferences for Apple Products
During Thursday’s meeting, you stated that Samsung’s production of survey-related
evidence had been completed on January 1, 2012, to the extent the evidence was something
that Samsung had been ordered to produce in early October 2011.
We asked whether Samsung had produced evidence regarding a specific survey that had
come to our attention on or about November 29, 2011, and that we had identified in a letter
to you on that date. As stated in my November 29 letter, it had come to our attention that
Samsung is currently sending purchasers of Samsung products a survey regarding their usage
of and preferences for various Apple products. Apple had found no surveys of this type in
Samsung’s production as of that date, although they 1) are responsive to at least RFPs 16, 29,
and 157, and PI RFPs 206 and 214, and 2) fall squarely within the scope of Judge Grewal’s
September 28 Order compelling Samsung to produce this very type of document.
Other than your request at Thursday’s meeting for more information, in response to Apple’s
raising it as part of its own agenda, we have received no response to my letter of November
29. During Thursday’s meeting, you stated that you had searched for evidence regarding this
specific survey but did not have enough information regarding the survey to locate it. At
Thursday’s meeting, for the first time, you requested that we provide additional information
regarding the cited survey.

sf-3091477

Rachel Herrick Kassabian
January 8, 2012
Page Two
Here is additional information. The cited survey is described in an internet comment by a
Samsung customer, stating in relevant part as follows:
Samsung, it appears, is trying to be like Apple and even sent me a survey
ploying me with questions about why I liked Apple computers, iPads,
iPods, etc. I can see they are trying to formulate a strategy.
It is now three months past Samsung’s Court-ordered deadline to produce these documents,
and one week beyond a second Court Order to produce the very same documents, yet we still
see no surveys of this type in Samsung’s production.
REDACTED

During Thursday’s meeting Apple also raised, as part of its own agenda, a survey identified
in my December 9, 2011, letter to you. In this survey,REDACTED
As I stated in my December 9 letter, Apple had not found any other documents
regarding that study, even though such documents 1) would be responsive to at least Apple
RFPs 16, 17, 29, 157, 220, 256 and PI RFPs 206 and 215; and, 2) fall squarely within the
scope of Judge Grewal’s September 28, 2011 Order compelling Samsung to produce this
very type of document.
REDACTED e
In my December 9 letter, Apple requested that Samsung immediately produce a

. As of January 5, we still had not located this information in Samsung’s
production.
During Thursday’s meeting, you stated that information regarding this survey may in fact be
in the production already and that Apple probably had just not seen it yet. That evening,
however, Samsung produced ten documents regarding this survey. The e-mail forwarding
the production acknowledged that the production contained the documents referenced in my
December 9 letter.
The ten documents produced by Samsung on Thursday consist ofREDACTED

sf-3091477

Rachel Herrick Kassabian
January 8, 2012
Page Three
Samsung’s production of documents relating to this recent, specifically identified study
should have been complete by October 7, but it is still incomplete.
Sincerely,
/s/ Mia Mazza
Mia Mazza
Cc:

Samuel Maselli
S. Calvin Walden
Peter Kolovos

sf-3091477