Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
637
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Wheeler Declaration ISO Motion to Seal, #2 Proposed Order ISO Motion to Seal, #3 Bartlett Declaration ISO Opposition to Motion to Enforce, #4 Ex A to Bartlett Decl, #5 Ex B to Bartlett Decl, #6 Ex C to Bartlett Decl, #7 Ex D to Bartlett Decl, #8 Ex E to Bartlett Decl, #9 Ex F to Bartlett Decl, #10 Ex G to Bartlett Decl, #11 Ex H to Bartlett Decl, #12 Ex I to Bartlett Decl, #13 Ex J to Bartlett Decl, #14 Ex K to Bartlett Decl, #15 Opposition to Motion to Enforce, #16 Maselli Decl ISO Opposition to Motion to Compel, #17 Ex A Maselli Decl, #18 Ex B Maselli Decl, #19 Ex C Maselli Decl, #20 Ex D Maselli Decl, #21 Ex E Maselli Decl, #22 Opposition to Motion to Compel, #23 Mazza Declaration ISO Opposition to Motion for Clarification, #24 Ex A Mazza Decl, #25 Ex B Mazza Decl, #26 Ex C Mazza Decl)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 1/17/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
hmcelhinny@mofo.com
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
mjacobs@mofo.com
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
jtaylor@mofo.com
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
atucher@mofo.com
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
rhung@mofo.com
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
jasonbartlett@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
WILLIAM F. LEE
william.lee@wilmerhale.com
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 526-6000
Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: (650) 858-6000
Facsimile (650) 858-6100
10
11
Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.
12
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
SAN JOSE DIVISION
17
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
18
19
20
21
22
Plaintiff,
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO COMPEL
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company,
Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:
Jan. 19, 2012
10:00 a.m.
Courtroom 5, 4th Floor
Hon. Paul S. Grewal
23
Defendants.
24
25
PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
26
27
28
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3093397
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
2
3
I.
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................... 1
4
II.
ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 2
5
A.
“All” Source Code and Technical Documents Showing Operation of
Allegedly Infringing Product Features .................................................................... 2
6
1.
8
Samsung’s Motion to Compel Production of Source Code is Moot ........... 2
2.
7
Samsung’s Motion to Compel Production of Technical Documents
is Similarly Unnecessary ............................................................................. 4
9
B.
“All” Source Code and Technical Documents Related to Known Prior Art........... 6
10
C.
All Documents Mentioning Samsung and its Accused Products ............................ 7
11
D.
Samsung’s Proposed Search Terms ........................................................................ 9
12
E.
Design History....................................................................................................... 10
13
1.
CAD and Sketchbooks .............................................................................. 10
14
2.
Models ....................................................................................................... 10
15
........................................................................................................ 11
16
4.
All Documents Regarding Tiger ............................................................... 11
17
F.
Survey and Marketing Documents .......................................................................... 3
18
G.
Financial Documents ............................................................................................... 3
19
H.
Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice ............................................................................. 4
20
I.
Fact Witness Depositions ........................................................................................ 6
21
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 9
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
i
1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2
Page(s)
3
CASES
4
Acton v. Target Corp.,
No. C08-1149RAJ,
2009 WL 5214419 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 22, 2009) ...................................................................... 5
5
6
7
Affinity Lab of Texas v. Apple, Inc.,
No. C 09-4436 CW (JL),
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53649 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011)....................................................... 7, 8
8
9
10
11
12
13
Bowers v. Mortg. Elec. Registration Sys., Inc.,
No. 10-4141-JTM,
2011 WL 6013092 (D. Kan. Dec. 2, 2011) ............................................................................... 5
Celerity, Inc. v. Ultra Clean Holding, Inc.,
No. C 05-04374 MMC(JL),
2007 WL 205067 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2007) ............................................................................. 7
Fausto v. Credigy Servs. Corp.,
251 F.R.D. 427 (N.D. Cal. 2008) .............................................................................................. 4
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Prima Bella Produce, Inc.,
No. 10-cv-00148 LJO JLT,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67253 (E.D. Cal. June 23, 2011) ....................................................... 11
J&M Assocs. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co.,
No. 06-cv-0903-W (JMA),
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97542 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2008) ......................................................... 12
JSR Micro, Inc. v. QBE Insurance Corp.,
No. C-09-03044 JPH (EDL),
2010 WL 1338152 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2010)............................................................................. 8
Lipari v. U.S. Bancorp., N.A.,
No. 07-2146-CM-DJW,
2008 WL 4642618 (D. Kan. Oct. 16, 2008).............................................................................. 5
23
24
25
26
27
Rahman v. Smith & Wollensky Restaurant Group, Inc.,
No. 06 Civ. 6198,
2009 WL 72441 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2009) .................................................................................. 9
Ryan v. Paychex, Inc.,
Civ. No. 08CV1151 (WWE),
2009 WL 2883053 (D. Conn. Sept. 1, 2009) ............................................................................ 8
28
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
i
1
2
3
4
Securities and Exchange Comm’n. v. Aqua Vie Beverage Corp.,
No. CV 04414-S-EJL,
2006 WL 2457525 (D. Idaho Aug. 23, 2006) ........................................................................... 9
Somerset Studios, LLC v. Sch. Specialty, Inc.,
No. C 10-5527 MEJ,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103927 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2011)...................................................... 7
5
STATUTES
6
7
8
9
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) ............................................................................................................... 6, 7
Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii)........................................................................................................................ 2
Rule 30(b)(6) ........................................................................................................................... 4, 6, 8
10
Rule 30(d)(1) ................................................................................................................................... 6
11
Local Rule 3-4(a).............................................................................................................................2
12
Local Rule 37-2 ......................................................................................................................passim
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
ii
1
2
I.
INTRODUCTION
Samsung lacks any legitimate reason for moving to compel. Every one of Samsung’s
3
requests is either: (1) moot because Apple has already produced the requested documents or will
4
produce the requested documents by a specific date; or (2) unreasonably broad because Samsung
5
requests “all” documents—even those that bear no relationship to Samsung’s claims or defenses.
6
Samsung’s motion is an attempt to disguise its own failures to produce responsive
7
documents and lack of compliance with this Court’s orders. Samsung has long refused to respond
8
to Apple’s requests for documents, ultimately offering inadequate last-minute compromises the
9
day before Apple moved to compel.
10
By contrast, Apple fully set forth its positions, in writing, a full week before Samsung
11
filed its motion. (See Declaration of Jason R. Bartlett in Support of Apple’s Opposition to
12
Samsung’s Motion to Enforce Various Court Orders filed herewith (“Bartlett Decl. ISO Opp. to
13
Motion to Enforce”) Ex. B.)1 In its letter, Apple explained that it had produced or committed to
14
producing by a specific date much of the documents and things Samsung now requests. (See id.)
15
These documents and things come on top of the millions of pages of documents and thousands of
16
models, prototypes, source code, CAD files, and other native-format data Apple already
17
produced. (Declaration of Jason R. Bartlett in Support of Apple’s Opposition to Samsung’s
18
Motion to Compel (“Bartlett Decl. ISO Opp. to Motion to Compel”) ¶ 2.) Despite Apple’s
19
willingness to produce documents by a specific date or compromise where Samsung’s requests
20
were overly broad, Samsung has ignored or rejected Apple’s offers and never explained why they
21
are inadequate. (Id. ¶ 3.) Samsung’s motion to compel should be denied.
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
In the interest of avoiding filing redundant paper and to avoid attaching identical exhibits
to multiple declarations, Apple refers herein to certain exhibits attached to the Bartlett Decl. ISO
Opp. to Motion to Enforce.
28
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
1
1
2
II.
ARGUMENT
A.
“All” Source Code and Technical Documents Showing Operation of Allegedly
Infringing Product Features
3
1.
Samsung’s Motion to Compel Production of Source Code is Moot
4
5
Samsung’s assertion that Apple has refused to produce source code relating to the accused
6
features in Apple’s accused products is false. In fact, Apple has produced its source code
7
showing the operation of the accused features as required by Patent Local Rule 3-4(a), and
8
Samsung has inspected it. On October 7, 2011, in its Invalidity Contentions, Apple stated that
9
“upon entry of an appropriate protective order … and upon receiving the consent of any necessary
10
non-parties, Apple will make available the source code in its possession sufficient to show the
11
operation of the accused functionality.” On December 6, having received a request for inspection
12
of source code from Samsung two business days earlier on December 2, Apple informed
13
Samsung that it was “currently prepared to produce” source code relevant to various accused
14
features in the accused products. For avoidance of doubt, Apple identified the specific categories
15
of source code that it had available for Samsung’s review. (See the Declaration of Samuel J.
16
Maselli In Support of Apple Inc.’s Opposition to Samsung’s Motion to Compel Discovery
17
(“Maselli Decl.”) Ex. A.) These categories consisted of:
18
Portions of the Photos app, Photo Bucket app, and Camera app source code
19
that relate to capturing images, displaying images, and attaching images to
20
e-mail;
21
Portions of the iPod and Music app source code that relate to playing
22
music;
23
Portions of the Clock app source code that relate to a world clock and time
24
information;
25
Portions of the Messages app source code that relate to display of incoming
26
and outgoing messages; and
27
Portions of Apple’s source code relating to display of the app multitasking
28
bar shown when a user double-clicks the Home button.
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
2
1
This code relates to the features accused of infringing the Samsung '055, '460, '711, '871, and '897
2
patents—in other words, all the “implementation” (i.e., not declared standards essential) patents
3
asserted by Samsung. This code is “home grown” by Apple, unlike the code relating to the
4
accused features for the other seven declared-essential patents, which is not developed by Apple
5
but rather is owned and supplied by Intel.
6
Despite Apple’s invitation on December 6, Samsung chose not to inspect Apple’s source
7
code until January 6, 2012—the day after the in-person meet and confer that preceded Samsung’s
8
filing of this motion.2 Samsung could have inspected this same Apple source code on any of the
9
20 business days between December 6 and January 6. Moreover, in the four days between
10
Samsung’s source code inspection on January 6 and the filing of Samsung’s motion to compel on
11
January 10, Samsung did not advise Apple of any alleged deficiencies in the code that Apple had
12
made available and that Samsung had inspected. Samsung’s motion to compel likewise does not
13
identify any alleged deficiencies in the content or the scope of the source code inspected by
14
Samsung.
15
With respect to the source code for the baseband processor chips incorporated in the
16
accused products, Samsung fails to mention that these components are supplied by a non-party
17
vendor, Intel. The source code for these components is confidential information owned by Intel.
18
As Apple informed Samsung before it filed this motion, Intel only provides Apple with some of
19
the source code for these chips. Nonetheless, three days before Samsung filed its motion, Apple
20
advised Samsung that it would “review the Intel baseband code in Apple’s possession to identify
21
code we believe may be relevant to the accused functionalities, and (subject to obtaining Intel’s
22
consent) will make any relevant code available for your inspection” by January 16. (Maselli
23
Decl. Ex. D.) Thus, Apple did not take the “factually impossible” position that it does not have
24
2
25
26
27
Instead, on January 2, Samsung accused Apple of withholding source code. (See
Maselli Decl. Ex. B.) In response, the very next day, Apple reaffirmed—two days before the lead
counsel in-person meet and confer and eight days before Samsung filed its motion to compel—
that it was “currently prepared” to produce relevant source code in its possession, as identified in
Apple’s December 6 letter, and advised Samsung that it “may begin its inspection at any time.”
(See Maselli Decl. Ex. C.)
28
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
3
1
any baseband source code, but has instead informed Samsung that it does not have certain kinds
2
of source code (e.g., Hardware Design Language (HDL) source code) in its possession, but would
3
be willing to produce any relevant Intel source code in its possession subject to Intel’s consent.
4
(Id.)
5
Since the filing of Samsung’s motion, Intel has advised Samsung that it does not consent
6
to Apple’s production of Intel’s source code, but would instead produce the relevant source code
7
itself. (See Maselli Decl. Ex. E.) We understand that Samsung and Intel have been in
8
communication since at least December 22, 2011 about the production of Intel’s baseband source
9
code for Apple’s accused products. (See Maselli Decl. ¶ 3.) These discussions were still ongoing
10
when Samsung filed its motion. In fact, Intel informed Samsung on January 9—two days before
11
Samsung filed its motion to compel—that it would produce the requested source code once its
12
protective order concerns are addressed. (See Maselli Decl. Ex. E.)
13
On January 13, Intel reiterated to Samsung that “subject to the entry of an adequate
14
protective order, Intel intends to produce HDL and source code sufficient to show the accused
15
functionality of the relevant chips with respect to the seven declared-essential patents in suit.”
16
(See id. (emphasis added).) Intel also stated that it “has not given Apple consent to produce” Intel
17
source code because (1) “the proposed protective order is inadequate” and (2) “Samsung has no
18
need for Apple to produce such source code” because “any confidential Intel source code in
19
Apple’s possession will either be (a) cumulative of the source code that Intel will be producing or
20
(b) irrelevant.” (Id.) Accordingly, this motion is moot (and indeed should never have been
21
brought) because Samsung will be able to obtain all relevant Intel source code in Apple’s
22
possession and more from Intel.
23
2.
24
25
Samsung’s Motion to Compel Production of Technical Documents is
Similarly Unnecessary
In addition to making available source code, with its patent local rule disclosures, Apple
26
produced detailed schematics, schematic board diagrams, and programming guides for the
27
accused Apple products. These documents show circuit schematics, pin layouts, and
28
subcomponents of the accused products, and include a comprehensive guide on programming in
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
4
1
iOS. Apple’s production of technical documents related to the accused Apple products has
2
continued both in this action and a related action between the parties—to date, Apple’s total
3
production across both United States cases includes over four million pages of documents
4
relevant to this action from the files of Apple engineers whose work relates to the accused Apple
5
3
products. (See Maselli Decl. ¶ 4.) These materials include additional schematics, bills of
6
material, specifications, testing data, certification documentation, project build status information
7
and data, and email correspondence concerning accused product technical issues. Samsung’s
8
suggestion that Apple is continuing to “defy” its production obligations under the Patent Local
9
Rules thus rings hollow. Indeed, Samsung offers no specific explanation for why or how the vast
10
number of technical documents produced by Apple to date are insufficient to show the operation
11
of the accused functionalities. Nor does Samsung’s motion identify any category of technical
12
documents, other than baseband processor related documents, that are allegedly “missing” from
13
Apple’s production.
14
With respect to technical documents relating to the Intel baseband processor chips used in
15
the accused Apple products, Apple received Intel’s consent on January 11 to produce those Intel
16
documents that Apple has located thus far. (See Maselli Decl. Ex. E.) As a result, Apple will be
17
producing over 21,000 pages of such documents this week. As was the case with the baseband
18
source code, these baseband processor technical documents are third party confidential Intel
19
documents. These documents reflect
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
3
The parties have submitted two different proposed protective orders for the Court’s
consideration, but both protective orders permit cross-use of documents between this litigation
and other ongoing litigation between the parties before the International Trade Commission.
28
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
5
1
2
3
4
,
5
6
7
(See Maselli Decl. ¶ 5.) Accordingly, Samsung’s motion to compel additional source code and
8
technical documents relating to the Samsung asserted patents is without merit.
9
10
B.
“All” Source Code and Technical Documents Related to Known Prior Art
Samsung moves to compel “all” source code and technical documents relating to “known
11
prior art” to Apple’s asserted utility patents. (Samsung Mot. at 6.) Apple has already produced
12
documents sufficient to show all such alleged prior art references. (Bartlett Decl. ISO Opp. to
13
Motion to Compel ¶ 4.) Samsung fails to explain in its motion to compel why it needs “all”
14
documents “related” to those alleged references. Samsung’s request for “all” such documents
15
instead appears calculated to impose an impossible burden on Apple—to require Apple to search
16
through files, many 10 to 20 years old, to gather “all” documents, even those only tangentially
17
“related” to the alleged prior art references. N.D. Cal. Civil Local Rule 37-2 requires Samsung to
18
“detail the basis for [its] contention that it is entitled to the requested discovery and must show
19
how the proportionality and other requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2) are satisfied.”
20
Samsung has not met this burden.
21
Nor has Samsung identified the specific prior art it is seeking, except in one instance.
22
Samsung’s sole example of prior art it still needs in this category concerns NeXT OS. NeXT OS
23
is alleged to be relevant to a single asserted Apple patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,429,002 (the “'002
24
Patent”). The '002 patent claims a computer-controlled display system having a particular status
25
bar. The status bar has programming modules, such as a clock or battery life indicator, which is
26
sensitive to user input. In the accused Galaxy products, for instance, the user might be able to
27
touch the time indicator shown on the status bar to cause the date to be displayed.
28
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
6
1
The NeXTSTEP OS that is the subject of Samsung’s motion was developed by NeXT,
2
Inc., a company founded by Steve Jobs and purchased by Apple in 1996 when Mr. Jobs rejoined
3
Apple. This was over fifteen years ago. It would be unduly burdensome to require Apple to
4
search for all documents and things relating to the NeXTSTEP OS, just to provide evidence
5
regarding the narrow question of whether the NeXTSTEP OS had a status bar within the meaning
6
of the '002 patent. Nevertheless, Apple has already produced all source code that it has been able
7
to locate. (Bartlett Decl. ISO Opp. to Motion to Compel ¶ 4.) Apple has also agreed to produce
8
all technical documents relating to NeXTSTEP OS that Apple has previously produced in other
9
litigation. (Id. ¶ 4 & Ex. 8 at 1-2.) Apple also made available a NeXT OS 3.0 work station,
10
11
which Samsung already has inspected. (Id. ¶ 4.)
Thus, Apple has already produced far more information than Samsung reasonably needs
12
relating to prior art defenses based on NeXT OS. Samsung never explains why it needs more.
13
Thus, Samsung has failed to show how the “proportionality and other requirements of Fed. R.
14
Civ. P. 26(b)(2) are satisfied.” See Civil Local Rule 37-2.
15
C.
16
Samsung asserts that it is entitled to “all” documents showing Apple’s analysis and
All Documents Mentioning Samsung and its Accused Products
17
consideration of Samsung and Samsung products. Samsung states that its demand for these
18
documents rests on “exactly the same basis upon which Apple demanded Samsung search for and
19
produce all documents using ‘Apple’ in certain custodians’ files”—specifically, “because they
20
evidence the extent to which Apple designers, engineers, and marketing personnel were aware of
21
and copied Samsung’s products.” (Samsung Mot. 7-8.)
22
This argument is premised on a false assumption of symmetry. Apple is entitled to
23
Samsung’s documents containing the word “Apple” because Samsung denied copying Apple’s
24
design. For this reason, the Court ordered Samsung to search for those documents:
25
From the custodial files of each of Samsung designers of
Samsung’s Galaxy S 4G and Infuse 4G, Droid Charge phones and
Galaxy Tab 10.1 table computer identified in Samsung’s Rule 26(a)
disclosures or interrogatory responses, all documents referencing
the Apple products alleged by Apple to embody one or more of the
ornamental or utility features claimed in the patents. All means all:
email, memoranda, whatever. Samsung put these documents at
26
27
28
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
7
1
2
3
4
5
issue when, at page 39 of its opposition to Apple's preliminary
injunction motion, it boldly declared that “[a]lthough willful
infringement, including deliberate copying, may be relevant to a
preliminary injunction motion, Apple has offered no evidence of
such copying or willful infringement.”
(Dkt. No. 267 at 3.)
None of this reasoning applies to Apple. There is no legitimate dispute whether Apple
6
copied the Samsung products in suit. Apple could not have done so, because there was nothing to
7
copy at the time Apple introduced its products. Apple’s iPhone was introduced in 2007, the
8
iPhone 3G in 2008, and the iPhone 4 in June 2010, but Samsung did not introduce the first of the
9
products in suit until July 2010. (Bartlett Decl. ISO Opp. to Motion to Compel ¶ 5.) Apple
10
introduced the iPad in 2010 and the iPad 2 in March 2011. (Id.) Samsung introduced its first
11
tablet in November 2010 and its iPad 2 look-alike Tab 10.1 in June 2011. (Id.) In fact,
12
Samsung’s accused products were introduced long after Apple’s design and technical work on
13
current iPhone, iPad and iPod touch products were completed. Accordingly, none of the evidence
14
sought by Samsung in this category is relevant, because none of it can show that Apple personnel
15
“were aware of and copied Samsung’s products.” Indeed, Samsung has not even alleged that
16
Apple copied any Samsung products or technologies. Under these circumstances, Samsung does
17
not and cannot meet its burden under Local Rule 37-2 to show that the burden of the requested
18
production is proportional to its need.
19
Nevertheless, solely to avoid unnecessary motion practice, Apple has already searched for
20
and produced inventor documents referencing “Samsung.” (Id. ¶ 6 & Ex. 8 at 5.) Apple has also
21
already agreed to produce market research and customer surveys, whether or not those documents
22
mention Samsung. Samsung alleges Apple failed to run the search term “Samsung” on files
23
collected from other custodians, but has never identified those additional custodians or explained
24
why such a search is necessary. (Id. ¶ 6.) In addition, Apple accepted a long list of Samsung’s
25
proposed search terms and has made reasonable attempts to narrow the handful it has not
26
accepted, as discussed in the following section. (Id. ¶ 7.) Accordingly, to the extent that
27
28
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
8
1
Samsung had any basis to demand Apple search for “Samsung” and related search terms in its
2
documents—which it did not—the motion is moot.4
3
D.
4
Pursuant to the Court’s Order of September 28, 2011 (Dkt. No. 267), Apple disclosed to
Samsung’s Proposed Search Terms
5
Samsung the search terms it used to search the files of Apple design inventors. Samsung was
6
unsatisfied with Apple’s search and demanded that Apple run 114 new search strings. (Bartlett
7
Decl. ISO Opp. to Motion to Compel ¶ 7.) Apple agreed to run, and did run, almost all of
8
Samsung’s requested searches. (Id.) Apple objected to some of Samsung’s proposed search
9
terms, however, as facially overbroad. Samsung demanded, for example that Apple search for all
10
instances of the word “look,” as well as all instances of the word “feel.” Other searches were
11
unreasonable as proposed but Apple was able to propose modified searches that Samsung
12
accepted.
13
The remaining disagreements between Apple and Samsung are limited to a very small
14
number of remaining terms. The specific terms in dispute were set out in Apple’s January 5,
15
2012 letter to Samsung. (Bartlett Decl. ISO Opp. to Motion to Enforce Ex. B at 7-10.) Apple
16
believes that its proposals on these few remaining terms are more than adequate to provide any
17
relevant discovery to Samsung. Moreover, as demonstrated in Apple’s supporting papers,
18
applying Samsung’s overbroad search terms without modification would result in an
19
unreasonable number of hits that have nothing to do with this case. (Bartlett Decl. ISO Opp. to
20
Motion to Compel ¶ 7.) Samsung has not responded to this point, nor does Samsung’s motion
21
even attempt to explain why Apple’s proposed compromises are deficient in any way. Under
22
these circumstances, Samsung has failed to establish an adequate basis for the relief it seeks.
23
4
24
25
26
27
Samsung insinuates that Apple agreed to a reciprocal production of all documents
containing their proposed search terms. (Samsung Mot. at 7.) Apple never made such a
sweeping agreement. Rather, as noted above, Apple agreed to a reasonable search of the files of
certain custodians, including inventors, despite Samsung’s failure to articulate any need for such
an exercise. Apple has accepted the general principle that, where relevant to both sides,
documents on certain issues should be produced on a reciprocal basis. But that concept cannot be
applied indiscriminately to issues that, like the underlying copying issue here, are relevant to only
one party’s case.
28
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
9
1
E.
2
Samsung wrongly argues that Apple has failed to produce relevant design history
3
materials. As detailed in the accompanying Opposition to Samsung’s Motion to Enforce Various
4
Court Orders (“Opp. to Motion to Enforce”), Apple has produced a substantial amount of design
5
history documents, including CAD, sketchbooks, and models or prototypes. The only items that
6
Apple has not produced are items that are irrelevant or of such limited or questionable relevance
7
that it would be unduly burdensome for Apple to search for and produce them.
8
9
Design History
1.
CAD and Sketchbooks
Samsung includes “CAD” in its motion headings and repeatedly emphasizes the relevance
10
of CAD (see, e.g., Samsung Mot. at 10 (“
11
Models Must be Produced”), but does not actually point to any additional CAD that Samsung
12
needs. This is because Samsung has nothing to point to. Apple began producing CAD files long
13
ago. (Bartlett Decl. ISO Opp. to Motion to Enforce ¶ 4.) As of December 30, 2011, Apple
14
produced all of the CAD its industrial designers created during the development of all released
15
iPhone, iPod touch, and iPad product. (Id. Ex. B.)
16
CAD Drawings, Prototypes, and
Apple has not produced all electrical diagrams or other computer aided design documents
17
relating to circuit boards, electrical and mechanical components, and other internal aspects of
18
these products, because they are plainly not relevant to design patents or trade dress. In any
19
event, it is not even clear that Samsung is seeking these kinds of documents through its motion,
20
and Samsung has not attempted to show the relevance of such documents.
21
In addition to CAD, as discussed in Apple’s Motion to Enforce Opposition, Apple has
22
produced sketchbooks related to every design patent at issue. (See Opp. to Motion to Enforce
23
Section I.) Here too, it is unclear what else Samsung seeks by its motion.
24
2.
Models
25
Apple has produced all design models that it has been able to find (more than a thousand)
26
that industrial designers created or had created when they were designing the products at issue for
27
Samsung’s inspection. (Bartlett Decl. ISO Opp. to Motion to Enforce ¶¶ 4, 7.) Apple has
28
canvassed individuals working on touch hardware, design, operating system software, core driver
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
10
1
software, and product design to identify any working prototypes, and has asked that Samsung do
2
the same. (Id. ¶ 8.) Samsung has not responded. (Id.)
3
Apple should not be expected to empty the company of non-working prototypes and spare
4
parts. (Id.) The burden of collecting, transporting, and presenting for inspection those pieces far
5
outweighs any relevance.
6
7
As discussed in the Opp. to Motion to Enforce,
8
(Id. ¶ 9, Ex. H (example of
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
4.
All Documents Regarding Tiger
Samsung’s demand for “all documents regarding Tiger” fails for two reasons. First,
24
Samsung has never propounded a Request for Production seeking Tiger documents. Samsung’s
25
failure to cite any Tiger-related RFP in its motion confirms as much. Samsung cannot move to
26
compel production of documents that it has not requested under the Federal Rules of Civil
27
Procedure. See Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. Prima Bella Produce, Inc., No.10-cv-00148 LJO JLT,
28
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67253, at *9 (E.D. Cal. June 23, 2011) (“Defendant cannot expand the
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
11
1
scope of its requests on a motion to compel”); J&M Assocs. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., No. 06-
2
cv-0903-W (JMA), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97542 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2008) (“The Court can only
3
compel the production of documents actually asked for in discovery”).
4
Second, Samsung’s demand places an impossible burden on Apple that far outweighs any
5
need by Samsung for Tiger-related documents. Tiger is a version of the Mac OS X operating
6
system. (Bartlett Decl. ISO Opp. to Motion to Compel ¶ 8.) “All materials” relating to Tiger
7
would encompass a vast range of source code, technical materials, emails, project management
8
documents, marketing, advertising, finance, retail, and customer support documents. Samsung’s
9
insistence that Apple search for, collect, and produce all this material is wildly disproportionate to
10
any conceivable benefit it could provide Samsung. The one and only aspect of Tiger that is even
11
alleged to be relevant here is its dock icons, which Samsung alleges constitute prior art to Apple’s
12
'305 design patent.
13
Samsung alleges that the dock icons in Tiger, which look like this:
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
12
1
invalidate Apple’s asserted design patent, which looks like this:
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Although Apple does not believe that Tiger is relevant prior art, Apple produced documents and
15
things sufficient to show the Tiger dock icons. (Id.) In particular, Apple has produced a new, in-
16
the-box, version of Tiger 10.4.3 for inspection. (Id.) Samsung has articulated no reason why
17
Tiger is relevant other than other than its dock icons, or why the copy of Tiger that Apple
18
provided is insufficient.
19
Incredibly, Samsung’s motion makes absolutely no attempt to narrow the scope of its
20
demand to a set of documents and things that it reasonably needs and that are within the scope of
21
its document requests. Samsung’s motion is a frivolous and abusive tactic that is aimed at only
22
one thing: harassment. Apple has produced Tiger-related material that is more than sufficient in
23
light of the exceedingly remote relevance of the Tiger OS to this case. Requiring production of
24
the vast array of additional documents demanded by Samsung would impose a significant burden
25
on Apple, with little benefit to Samsung. Samsung’s demand for “all documents regarding Tiger”
26
is thus improper under Rule 26(b)(2)(C)(iii) and Local Rule 37-2 and should be denied.
27
28
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
2
1
F.
2
Apple has agreed to produce numerous survey and marketing documents related to
Survey and Marketing Documents
3
Apple’s design and utility patents, trade dress, and trademarks. Apple specifically explained in
4
writing over a week before Samsung filed its motion to compel that it would provide the
5
following documents by January 31, 2012:
6
Final survey reports, questionnaires and raw survey data for all customer
7
surveys conducted by Apple related to iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad; and
8
All market research reports purchased by Apple in the ordinary course of
9
business relating to iPhone, iPod touch and iPad.
10
(Bartlett Decl. ISO Opp. to Motion to Enforce Ex. B; Barlett Decl. ISO Opp. to Motion to
11
Compel Ex. 8 at 2-3.) These documents are sufficient to support any alleged defenses Samsung
12
asserts.
13
The only dispute is whether Apple needs to produce even more documents. But Samsung
14
never meets its Civil Local Rule 37-2 burden to show why it needs additional documents beyond
15
those that Apple offered, nor does Samsung even explain which types of additional documents it
16
would need. Apple believes that both parties should produce a broad set of survey-related
17
documents and has invited Samsung to describe the additional categories of survey-related
18
documents it is seeking. Samsung has failed to do so.
19
G.
20
As with Survey documents, Apple has produced numerous financial documents in
21
Financial Documents
response to Samsung’s request. The following categories of documents have been produced:
22
U.S. and world wide units by quarter from FY 2007 to 2011 for iPhone,
23
iPod touch and iPad;
24
U.S. and world wide revenue by quarter from FY 2007 to 2011 for iPhone,
25
iPod touch and iPad;
26
GAAP line of business reports setting forth Standard Margins, Adjusted
27
Standard Margins, Gross Margins, allocated SG&A, and Research and
28
Development Costs for iPhone, iPad and iPod for FY 2007 to 2011;
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
3
1
Bills of Materials for all accused Apple products (including line item cost
2
information); and
3
Capital expenditure data for the U.S. and worldwide relating to iPhone,
4
iPad and iPod.
5
These documents reflect how Apple itself tracks financial information in the ordinary
6
course of business. As explained in Apple’s January 5 letter to Samsung, additional documents
7
would be unreasonably duplicative, burdensome, and unreliable because (unlike the documents
8
identified above) they would not necessarily represent final financial figures. Fausto v. Credigy
9
Servs. Corp., 251 F.R.D. 427, 430 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (ordering production of specific financial
10
statements and tax returns, but otherwise denying motion to compel “broad array” of financial
11
documents that was “unduly broad” given narrow relevance of such documents).
12
Samsung’s motion fails to explain why it needs even more documents than those proposed
13
in Apple’s letter. For example, Samsung does not attempt to explain why it would be reasonable
14
to demand every Apple email that mentions sales results or pricing, or every document that refers
15
to customer demand. Samsung thus fails to carry its burden under Local Rule 37-2.
16
The only additional category of documents Samsung identifies in its motion is “business
17
plans and strategies.” Apple did not address that issue in its previous correspondence with
18
Samsung because Samsung never raised a request for business plans and strategies at the January
19
5 lead trial counsel meet and confer. (Mazza Decl. ¶ 3.) Under Judge Koh’s Case Management
20
Order, Samsung therefore cannot move to compel on these documents. In any event, Apple has
21
agreed to produce a reasonable scope of marketing and strategy documents collected from its
22
Product Marketing, Advertising, and Market Research groups. Samsung’s demand for all
23
“business plans and strategies,” however, is too vague for Apple to respond to without more
24
specificity.
25
H.
26
As discussed in greater detail in Apple’s Motion for Protective Order Regarding
27
Samsung’s First Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice (Dkt. No. 599), Samsung’s 30(b)(6) notice is
28
improper on its face and plainly calculated to harass. The notice spans 46 single-spaced pages,
Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
4
1
sets forth 229 topics for examination, and includes more than 600 subparts. The total number of
2
subjects for examination exceeds 800. Even if it were possible to prepare one or more witnesses
3
to testify on this many subjects before the close of fact discovery, doing so would impose an
4
immense burden on Apple. Apple would likely be required to devote hundreds, if not thousands,
5
of hours to preparing deponents on the myriad subjects. Apple’s counsel would need to spend
6
substantial additional time working with the deponents to ensure that their preparation was
7
adequate.
8
9
This colossal expenditure of time and effort would result in little, if any, benefit to
Samsung. Samsung has already used more than 123 hours of its allotted time, leaving less than
10
127 hours for its remaining depositions. (Bartlett Decl. ISO Opp. to Motion to Compel ¶ 9.)
11
Moreover, Samsung has noticed depositions of 49 other Apple witnesses. Given these
12
constraints, Samsung knows that it cannot cover more than a small fraction of the over 800 topics
13
listed in its notice in its remaining time. Its true objective is to force Apple to spend hundreds of
14
hours preparing perhaps dozens of witnesses to testify on numerous topics which Samsung has no
15
intention of covering. The Court should reject this tactic. See, e.g., Bowers v. Mortg. Elec.
16
Registration Sys., Inc., No. 10-4141-JTM, 2011 WL 6013092, at *6-7 (D. Kan. Dec. 2, 2011)
17
(“the burden on [the party] of producing a representative to testify to the far-reaching 22 topics
18
contained [in the notice] outweighs the likely benefit of the discovery sought”); Acton v. Target
19
Corp., No. C08-1149RAJ, 2009 WL 5214419, at *4 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 22, 2009) (advising party
20
whose 30(b)(6) notice listed over 400 subjects that “it is unlikely [the party] will have anyone to
21
blame but himself” if it turned out that its adversary was “unprepared on one or more subjects”).
22
In addition, numerous topics in the notice are inappropriate. For example, many topics are
23
so overbroad that Apple “is unable to identify the outer limits of the areas of inquiry noticed, and
24
designating a representative in compliance with the deposition notice becomes impossible.”
25
Lipari v. U.S. Bancorp., N.A., No. 07-2146-CM-DJW, 2008 WL 4642618, at *5 (D. Kan. Oct. 16,
26
2008). These overbroad topics include 15 topics seeking testimony concerning “all
27
communications” with certain broad categories of persons on 112 separate subjects, and 17 other
28
topics seeking testimony concerning “all software” relating to 157 separate features or subjects.
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
5
1
Numerous other topics seek facts supporting certain legal theories advanced by Apple in this
2
litigation, or seek facts or data such as the amount of sales and revenue from each Apple accused
3
product or identification of all products with which Apple’s accused products compete. These
4
topics should be the subject of interrogatories, not deposition questioning.
5
Despite the manifest impropriety of Samsung’s notice, Apple offered to provide Rule
6
30(b)(6) testimony on a narrowed set of topics, provided that Samsung agreed to provide
7
reciprocal 30(b)(6) testimony on similar topics. Contrary to Samsung’s assertion that Apple tried
8
to “add to its [deposition] time” (Samsung Mot. at 14), Apple never suggested that either side’s
9
reciprocal testimony should be exempt from Judge Koh’s time limit for depositions. Indeed, as
10
noted above, it is Samsung that is pretending that those limits do not exist. Nor is Apple
11
“conditioning” 30(b)(6) testimony on reciprocal testimony from Samsung. If Samsung serves a
12
notice with a reasonable list of specific topics appropriate for 30(b)(6) examination, and
13
withdraws its patently unreasonable notice, Apple will provide the requested testimony.
14
I.
15
Apple provided deposition dates for all of the noticed Apple deponents by January 13, in
Fact Witness Depositions
16
accord with the parties’ agreement.5 (Mazza Decl. ¶ 4.) Samsung’s motion to compel with
17
respect to these deponents is moot.
18
Samsung also requests that the Court order Apple to provide a second deposition of
19
Jonathan Ive, Apple’s Senior Vice President of Industrial Design. Samsung’s request for still
20
more time with Mr. Ive is completely unsupported by any facts and plainly intended to harass.
21
Among other things, Samsung has already deposed Mr. Ive for a full seven hours, a second
22
deposition would be cumulative of other witnesses’ testimony and documents, and the burden of
23
subjecting Mr. Ive to another deposition outweighs its benefits.
24
25
26
27
Under Rule 30(d)(1), “[u]nless otherwise stipulated or ordered by the court, a deposition is
limited to 1 day of 7 hours.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(d)(1). Pursuant to the “good cause”
5
Samsung purported to provide dates too, but did not. Most of the dates provided by
Samsung were avowedly “tentative” and subject to further “confirmation” by Samsung. (Mazza
Decl. Ex. A.)
28
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
6
1
requirement of Rule 26(b)(2), a Court must allow additional time only if needed to “fairly
2
examine the deponent” or “if the deponent, another party, or any other circumstance impedes or
3
delays the examination.” See id. In determining whether there is good cause for additional
4
deposition time, “the court should begin with the presumption that the seven-hour limit was
5
carefully chosen and that extensions of that limit should be the exception, not the rule.” Somerset
6
Studios, LLC v. Sch. Specialty, Inc., No. C 10-5527 MEJ, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103927, at *12-
7
13 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 14, 2011) (emphasis added).
8
9
Because Mr. Ive is one of Apple’s most senior executives, Samsung’s burden to continue
his deposition is even greater. A party seeking to depose a high-ranking corporate officer, such as
10
Mr. Ive, must “first establish that the executive (1) has unique, non-repetitive, firsthand
11
knowledge of the facts at issue in the case, and (2) that other less intrusive means of discovery,
12
such as interrogatories and depositions of other employees, have been exhausted without
13
success.” Affinity Lab of Texas v. Apple, Inc., No. C 09-4436 CW (JL), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
14
53649, at *40-41 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2011). “Virtually every court that has addressed deposition
15
notices directed at an official at the highest level or ‘apex’ of corporate management has observed
16
that such discovery creates a tremendous potential for abuse or harassment.” Celerity, Inc. v.
17
Ultra Clean Holding, Inc., No. C 05-04374 MMC (JL), 2007 WL 205067, at *3 (N.D. Cal.
18
Jan. 25, 2007).
19
Samsung fails to show that it is entitled under these standards to continue Mr. Ive’s
20
deposition. First, Samsung fails to show good cause as required under Rule 26(b)(2). Samsung
21
deposed Mr. Ive for the full seven hours allowed under the Federal Rules. (Bartlett Decl. ISO
22
Opp. to Motion to Compel ¶ 10.) Samsung covered a wide range of issues during its full-day
23
deposition of Mr. Ive, including his personal background, Apple’s design process, the
24
development of the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch designs, and issues relating to document
25
creation. (Id.) Samsung fails to explain why it needs more time to examine Mr. Ive. Samsung
26
does not:
27
identify any additional topics that it needs to cover with Mr. Ive;
28
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
7
1
demonstrate that Samsung was prevented from addressing those topics in
2
Mr. Ive’s first deposition;
3
identify any additional documents or evidence which were unavailable at
4
the time of Mr. Ive’s deposition and on which it now wishes to examine
5
him;
6
explain why it believes Mr. Ive would be in a position to offer useful
7
testimony on the topics it intends to cover; or
8
demonstrate that its questions could not be addressed to other witnesses
9
who have not been deposed.
10
Samsung knew before deposing Mr. Ive that he had substantive knowledge of Apple’s
11
product designs. And Samsung knew at the time it scheduled Mr. Ive’s deposition that Apple had
12
not completed its entire production of “all” documents Samsung now seeks. Samsung should not
13
be heard to complain about the fact that it took Mr. Ive’s deposition early in the case before
14
discovery was complete—that is the schedule Samsung itself requested.
15
Second, Samsung fails to even attempt to meet the requirements for an apex deposition.
16
Samsung has already deposed Mr. Ive for a full seven hours. To justify further examination time,
17
it must show that he has “unique, non-repetitive, firsthand knowledge” of any issues that were not
18
covered during his deposition.” Affinity Labs., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53649, at *40. Samsung
19
does not identify any non-covered issues, much less show that Mr. Ive has unique knowledge of
20
them. Nor does Samsung bother to show that “other less intrusive means of discovery, such as
21
interrogatories and depositions of other employees, have been exhausted without success.” Id.
22
None of the authorities cited in Samsung’s brief supports its assertion that Mr. Ive’s
23
purported status as a “key witness” by itself justifies additional deposition time. In each of those
24
cases, additional time was granted on grounds that do not apply here. See Ryan v. Paychex, Inc.,
25
Civ. No. 08CV1151 (WWE), 2009 WL 2883053, at *1 (D. Conn. Sept. 1, 2009) (witness
26
repeatedly resisted answering questions and otherwise “disrupted” the deposition); JSR Micro,
27
Inc. v. QBE Insurance Corp., No. C-09-03044 JPH (EDL), 2010 WL 1338152, at *6 (N.D. Cal.
28
Apr. 5, 2010) (Rule 30(b)(6) witness “failed to prepare” regarding topics listed in the deposition
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
8
1
notice); Rahman v. Smith & Wollensky Restaurant Group, Inc., No. 06 Civ. 6198, 2009 WL
2
72441, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2009) (witness was the “only identified” plaintiff in a class action
3
that alleged a wide range of claims and thus was the “best source of information” regarding the
4
class, “the nature of their claims, and the scope of their possible damages”); Securities and
5
Exchange Comm’n. v. Aqua Vie Beverage Corp., No. CV 04414-S-EJL, 2006 WL 2457525, at *3
6
(D. Idaho Aug. 23, 2006) (deponent produced a set of documents at 2:45 p.m. on the day of his
7
deposition and the examining party had no opportunity to review or use them at the deposition).
8
Samsung’s demand for additional time to depose Mr. Ive should be denied.
9
CONCLUSION
10
For these reasons, Apple respectfully requests that Samsung’s Motion to Compel be
11
DENIED.
12
13
14
Dated: January 17, 2012
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By:
15
/s/ Richard S.J. Hung
Richard S.J. Hung
Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO COMPEL
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3093397
9
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?