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

Filing 642

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Things (Dkt No. 613) filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Declaration in support of Motion to Seal, #2 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Seal, #3 Proposed Public Redacted Version of Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Things (Dkt No. 613), #4 Redacted Chan Declaration, #5 Exhibit 1 to Chan Declaration, #6 Exhibit 2 to Chan Declaration, #7 Exhibit 3 to Chan Declaration, #8 Exhibit 4 to Chan Declaration)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 1/17/2012)

EXHIBIT 3

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]

December 30, 2011
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 December 28, 2011 concerning production of additional
sketchbooks, CAD, and physical models.
Apple has no basis for requesting documents relating to unaccused products. Samsung, unlike
Apple, has been manufacturing "phone products" for nearly thirty years. Yet Apple has not
limited its requested to any reasonable time period. Moreover, Apple has not even limited its
request to mobile phones, much less smartphones—although even this request would be
overbroad. As stated, Apple's requests seek CAD files, sketchbooks and physical models
relating to hundreds, if not thousands, of products that have absolutely nothing to do with
Apple's asserted intellectual property or the Samsung accused products—e.g., car phones from
1983, cordless home phones from 1992, and flip phones from 1998. Even if such documents and
things were relevant (and of course they are not) the burden imposed on Samsung would be
oppressive.
Samsung raised these precise concerns during the last meet and confer call. Apple made no
attempt to address them during the call, and thus it is no surprise that you make no attempt to
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
December 30, 2011

address them in your letter. Instead of meeting and conferring in good faith as to the scope and
relevance of Apple's requests, your letter continues Apple's demonstrated strategy of merely
repeating its requests, demanding immediate production, and threatening motion practice. We
remain available to discuss ways to narrow these requests down to something relevant to this
case, if you are so inclined.
Very truly yours,

/s/
Rachel Herrick Kassabian

2