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)

Download PDF
EXHIBIT 3 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 rachelkassabian@quinnemanuel.com 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 (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 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

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?