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 B

quinn emanuel

trial lawyers | silicon valley

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

WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
[e-mail]

January 3, 2012
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mia Mazza
Morrison & Foerster
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Re:

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Case No. 11-cv-1846 LHK

Dear Mia:
I write in response to your letter dated January 2, 2011 concerning production of source code and
technical documents relating to the accused products.
As an initial matter, Samsung rejects Apple’s interpretation of what the Court’s December 22,
2011 Order required Samsung to produce. Samsung’s recent production of source code and
technical documents is based on the plain language of the Order, which compelled production of
“[s]ource code and technical documents showing the operation of the allegedly infringing
product features” for which the parties have met and conferred. If the Court intended to compel
the production described in Apple’s proposed order or in its December 6, 2011 letter, the Court
would have done so explicitly. It did not do so.
As noted in your letter, the Court denied Apple’s motion as to the majority of its requests for
technical documents due to Apple’s failure to meet and confer about the scope and relevance of
these requests (including RFP No. 193, which you omit from your letter) before filing its motion.
Although your January 2, 2011 letter attempts to create the appearance of meeting and
conferring, the letter simply restates Apple’s demand for immediate production while ignoring
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES | 865

South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
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 [phone]
NEW YORK | 51

WASHINGTON, DC | 1299

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 825, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2400 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Building, 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]
MOSCOW | Voentorg Building, 3rd Floor, 10 Vozdvizhenka Street, Moscow 125009, Russia | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
LONDON | 16

Mia Mazza
January 3, 2012

the objections Samsung raised in its written responses and in my letter dated December 2, 2011.
Please make yourself available to discuss this issue tomorrow at 8 a.m., and be prepared to
respond to Samsung’s objections, with citation to authority.
Specifically, now that Samsung has produced documents sufficient to show the operation of the
allegedly infringing products' features, Apple must be prepared to justify why these additional
requests are relevant. For example, Apple must explain its asserted need for documents showing
the “evolution” of the entire operating system, every aspect of Samsung’s touchscreens, and each
application installed on the accused products. See RFP Nos. 225, 229, and 233. Similarly, Apple
must explain the relevance of updates made to product features that are not accused in this action
and/or updates initiated by parties other than Samsung. See RFP Nos. 226, 230, and 234.
Samsung also believes that Apple’s requests for all documents “referring or relating to” any
“feature” or “characteristic” of the operating systems, touchscreens, and installed applications
are patently overbroad on their face. See RFP Nos. 227, 231, and 235.
Samsung also expects Apple to be prepared to discuss Samsung’s corresponding requests for
source code and technical documents. While Apple indicated today, for the first time, that
certain categories of source code are now available for inspection, Apple’s production does not
reflect the full scope of production requested in my December 2, 2011 letter and Samsung RFP
Nos. 39, 195, 196, 200, 202, 205, 207-210, and 212-218. As indicated in Diane Hutnyan’s
recent letter, Samsung is seeking Apple’s commitment to producing all documents responsive to
these requests before January 10, 2011.
Very truly yours,

Melissa N. Chan

2