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)

Download PDF
Exhibit B quinn emanuel trial lawyers | silicon valley 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL: (650) 801-5000 FAX: (650) 801-5100 WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS 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 (213) 443-3000 FAX (213) 443-3100 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL (212) 849-7000 FAX (212) 849-7100 SAN FRANCISCO | 50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL (415) 875-6600 FAX (415) 875-6700 CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL (312) 705-7400 FAX (312) 705-7401 NEW YORK | 51 WASHINGTON, DC | 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 825, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2400 | TEL (202) 538-8000 FAX (202) 538-8100 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL +44(0) 20 7653 2000 FAX +44(0) 20 7653 2100 TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Building, 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL +81 3 5510 1711 FAX +81 3 5510 1712 MANNHEIM | Erzbergerstraße 5, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL +49(0) 621 43298 6000 FAX +49(0) 621 43298 6100 MOSCOW | Voentorg Building, 3rd Floor, 10 Vozdvizhenka Street, Moscow 125009, Russia | TEL +7 495 797 3666 FAX +7 495 797 3667 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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?