Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
OPPOSITION to ( #598 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Samsung's First Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice ) filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Attachments: #1 Affidavit Chan, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 Proposed Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 1/17/2012) Modified text on 1/18/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).
425 MARKET STREET
MO RRI SO N & F O E RST E R L LP
T O K YO , L O N D O N , BR U SSE L S,
BE I JI N G , SH AN G H AI , H O N G K O N G
N E W YO RK , SAN F RAN C I SCO ,
L O S A N G E L E S, P A L O A L T O ,
SAC RAME N T O , SAN D I E G O ,
D E N VE R, N O RT H E RN VI RG I N I A,
WASH I N G T O N , D .C.
December 27, 2011
Writer’s Direct Contact
Via E-Mail (firstname.lastname@example.org)
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Apple v. Samsung, Case No. 11-cv-1846-LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal.)
We have received Samsung’s First 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice to Apple, Inc. As we
discussed during last Wednesday’s meet-and-confer teleconference, the Notice is oppressive
on its face.
The Notice’s 229 topics (and more than 600 subparts) are plainly intended to harass Apple,
rather than to seek testimony that is reasonably necessary for Samsung’s claims and defenses
in this case. Samsung cannot possibly expect to cover all of these topics within the 250
hours that Judge Koh has allotted each party for depositions particularly in view of
Samsung’s position that a 30(b)(6) deposition notice is constrained by the 7-hour limit of
But even putting aside the sheer number of Samsung’s topics, many of Samsung’s topics are
so overbroad that Apple could not meaningfully prepare a witness to testify. See, e.g., Nos.
51, 66, 111, 123, 129, 144, 151, 158, 165, 172, 182, 184, 192, 198, and 205 (seeking
testimony concerning “all communications” with certain parties); see also Nos. 74, 110, 122,
128, 136, 139, 143, 149, 150, 157, 164, 171, 176, 190, 191, 197, and 204 (seeking testimony
concerning “all software” relating to a specified topic). Other topics also are unreasonably
cumulative of each other and of discovery that Samsung has already sought and obtained
from Apple. By way of example only, 29 topics cover the “baseband processors”
incorporated into the accused Apple devices. Two of these 29 topics, in turn, separately seek
identification of the baseband processors incorporated into the accused products. And
another 6 of these 29 topics separately seek identification of the software used to operate the
baseband processors. But Apple has already provided a substantive response to Samsung’s
interrogatories that seek similar information (e.g., Nos. 19 and 20).
December 27, 2011
For at least these reasons, Apple objects to Samsung’s First 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice. As
we also discussed during the call, there may be limited topics in your notice that would be
appropriate for a 30(b)(6) deposition, if stated separately or clarified. Apple would be
willing to provide 30(b)(6) testimony on such topics, provided that Samsung is willing to
reciprocate and provide corporate testimony to Apple on similar topics. During our call, we
asked Samsung to go back and reexamine its Notice and identify a narrowed and more
focused set of topics on which Samsung seeks testimony and for which it will be willing to
provide reciprocal testimony. We look forward to Samsung’s identification of such topics.
Finally, if Samsung truly intends to seek a 30(b)(6) deposition of Apple pursuant to its 229topic Notice, Apple reserves all rights, including moving for a protective order.
/s/ Mia Mazza
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?