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

Filing 648

Declaration of Cyndi Wheeler in Support of #602 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re Samsung's January 10, 2012 Filings filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Exhibit 13, #14 Exhibit 14, #15 Exhibit 15, #16 Exhibit 16, #17 Exhibit 17, #18 Proposed Order)(Related document(s) #602 ) (Hung, Richard) (Filed on 1/18/2012)

EXHIBIT 4
REDACTED VERSION

quinn emanuel

trial lawyers | washington, dc

1101 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 6th Floor, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2544 | TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
[phone]
WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
[e-mail]

October 18, 2011
May Contain Confidential Information
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Jason Bartlett
Morrison & Foerster
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Re:

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Case No. 11-CV-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal)

Dear Jason,
We have now conducted several inventor depositions, and it is apparent that Apple is not
taking its discovery responsibilities seriously.
First, it appears that custodian interviews have not been conducted with each and every
inventor (see, e.g., LeMay dep. at 178:7-22). This is a basic necessity to confirm that Apple is
producing all relevant documents in their possession, custody, or control, and should have been
conducted long before their depositions. Please confirm that Apple will conduct such interviews
and produce all relevant documents found as a result of the interviews.
Next, it is apparent that Apple did not thoroughly search nor produce documents related
to the patents it asserts against Samsung. Below is a sampling of the deficiencies we have
identified. Please be prepared to discuss these, and Apple's inventor productions generally on
tomorrow's meet and confer.

quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES | 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL [phone]

FAX (213)

443-3100

NEW YORK | 51 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]
SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL [phone]

FAX (650)

801-5100

CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
LONDON | 16 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Bldg., 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]

Deposition of Stephen LeMay
Apple produced less than five documents from Stephen LeMay. This is not surprising
considering that, though he received a document retention notice, Mr. LeMay did not search for
documents (111:12-19), he did not search his emails (113:5-114:1), and he did not search the
server where he stores documents (119:17-21). Mr. LeMay's emails,
REDACTED
documents and documents stored on the server are relevant to this litigation. As Apple asserted
the ’163 patent against Samsung, Apple should have produced these documents.
Furthermore, Mr. LeMay testified that at some point, a document collection company
took an image of his hard drive. Therefore, relevant communications and emails are in the
possession of Apple's legal department or Morrison and Foerster. Please produce all documents
on Mr. LeMay's hard drive from the 2005-2007 timeframe, including any documents related to
Mr. LeMay's work on the Safari project immediately.
Deposition of John Elias
Mr. Elias identified many documents that have not been produced. Below is a sampling
of these documents:
• REDACTED
(80:11-84:20)
(90:17-93:24)

• REDACTED
• REDACTED
(112:1-118:20)
• REDACTED

(149:3-15:13).
Mr. Elias testified that he provided all of these documents to Apple's legal department.
Samsung has not identified these documents. Please provide the Bates numbers, or produce the
documents immediately.
In addition to the documents Mr. Elias provided to Apple, he also testified that he has a
set of documents related to the ’828 patent. He also testified regarding a set of emails that was
provided to Apple in conjunction with the Quantum case. Please produce these immediately.
Please also produce any documents on Mr. Elias' old computer, that was collected by Apple
legal.

2

Deposition of Imran Chaudhri
Mr. Chaudhri is listed as an inventor on five Apple patents. Yet, his production is sorely
lacking. The following documents identified by Mr. Chaudhri have not been produced:
•

Mr. Chaudhri's previous deposition transcripts (5:14-7:6)1

• REDACTED
(16:5-18:7)
•

All files that Mr. Chaudhri produced or made available to Apple's counsel (19:1919:25)

•

Documents sufficient to show the date of release of Mac OS X (39:20-39:21)

•

All documents, including but not limited to source code, showing (a) the
development of the user interface of Mac OS X; and (b) any other documents
relating to the ’891 patent's implementation in Mac OS X (60:20-61:18).
(145:25 –

• REDACTED
147:3).
•

Presentations of icons and layouts presented at the design team’s regular weekly
meetings, and any emails that include those presentations (243:13-245:7).

All we received for Mr. Chaudhri’s production were several dozen emails that were
irrelevant to the patents he invented. And almost none of them were from the time when Mr.
Chaudhri is claimed to have invented the patents. There were also no files produced that show
drafts of any icons, layouts, or any other design features found in the D334, D305, or D790
patents. For example, we received no Photoshop or Illustrator files and no presentations used in
design review meetings. Indeed, it appears that the only type of document reviewed was email,
and that review appears to be deficient.

1

Apple has failed to produce many of the inventors' previous deposition transcripts.
3

Deposition of Freddy Anzures
Mr. Anzures is listed as an inventor on the D305 patent, yet his production included no
documents showing images or drafts of the icons, screen layout, or other design features depicted
in that patent. Like Mr. Chaudhri’s production, Mr. Anzures’ documents consisted of several
dozen irrelevant emails, none of which predated the application date for the D305 patent — June
23, 2007. REDACTED

REDACTED

REDACTED

Given the deficient document production for Mr. Anzures, it appears that Apple has
failed to attempt any reasonable search for documents, emails, presentations, or any other files
relevant to Mr. Anzures’ work on the D305 patent, either on his own computer or the Human
Interface Server. It is not plausible that Apple conducted a reasonable review of Mr. Anzures’
files and could not find a single sketch, rendering, draft, or image of any icon or other design
feature created by Mr. Anzures during the time he is claimed to have invented the D305 patent.
Please produce these documents immediately. Samsung reserves the right to re-depose
and/or seek any other relief from the Court as a result of Apple's failure to produce documents
relevant to the claims Apple asserts against Samsung.
Best regards,
/s/ Marissa R. Ducca
Marissa R. Ducca
cc:

Mark D. Selwyn, Esq.
Peter J. Kolovos, Esq.
Melissa N. Chan, Esq.
4

Rachel Herrick Kassabian, Esq.

5