Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
MOTION to Permit Samsung's Expert Samuel Lucente to Review Materials Designated Under the Protective Order filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. Motion Hearing set for 2/7/2012 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal. Responses due by 2/3/2012. Replies due by 2/6/2012. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Albert P. Bedecarre, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Exhibit D, #6 Exhibit E, #7 Exhibit F, #8 Exhibit G, #9 Exhibit H, #10 Exhibit I, #11 Exhibit J, #12 Exhibit K, #13 Exhibit L, #14 Exhibit M, #15 Proposed Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 1/30/2012)
755 PAGE MILL ROAD
January 30, 2012
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
NEW YORK, SAN FRANCISCO,
LOS ANGELES, PALO ALTO,
SACRAMENTO, SAN DIEGO,
DENVER, NORTHERN VIRGINIA,
TOKYO, LONDON, BRUSSELS,
BEIJING, SHANGHAI, HONG KONG
Writer’s Direct Contact
Rachel Herrick Kassabian
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Fifth Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Apple v. Samsung, Case No. 11-cv-1846-LHK (N.D. Cal.)
Subject to Protective Order––Contains Samsung AEO Information
This responds to your January 28, 2012 letter regarding Samsung’s proposed expert Samuel
Lucente. Apple maintains its objection. At your request, I write to again set out Apple’s
Apple objects to the disclosure of its protected materials to Mr. Lucente based, in part, on his
status as a co-inventor and owner of pending patent applications in several jurisdictions that
relate to user interfaces in mobile phones. As we understand it, Samsung proposes giving
Mr. Lucente access to Apple protected information on precisely this subject matter.
Samsung has never proposed any reasonable way to address that problem, or to limit the
types of information to which Mr. Lucente would be allowed access.
In addition, Samsung has still never made a proper disclosure with regard to Mr. Lucente.
This too is a basis on which Apple objects to Samsung’s disclosure of Apple protected
information to Mr. Lucente. Specifically, Paragraph 12(a) of the Protective Order (emphasis
Prior to disclosing any Protected Material to any person described in
Paragraphs 9(b)(iii) or 10(c)(iii) (referenced below as “Person”), the Party seeking
to disclose such information shall provide the Producing Party with written notice
that includes: ... (iii) an identification of all of the Person’s past or current
employment or consulting relationships, including direct relationships and
relationships through entities owned or controlled by the Person, within the last
five (5) years....
Rachel Herrick Kassabian
January 30, 2012
This would require, among other things, that Samsung give Apple information on all of
Mr. Lucente’s consulting relationships through his current company Lucente Design. But
Samsung has not done so and, moreover, the information it has provided appears inaccurate
In response to our questions about Lucente Design’s clients, Samsung reported that
Mr. Lucente’s employment with HP ended in November 2010, and that, since then, while
with Lucente Design, Mr. Lucente only consulted for Honeywell Aerospace and sits on a
Design Advisory Board at Pepsico’s Frito-Lay division. Samsung stated that, other than
those matters, Mr. Lucente “has refrained from taking on any other clients due to this case.”
The public record appears to show otherwise. Publicly available information states that
Mr. Lucente still “consults with the Hewlett-Packard Co.” (see http://idsa.org/sam-lucente
and http://www.dmi.org/dmi/html/conference/europe11/s_hp.htm), which is inconsistent
with what Samsung has told us.
Samsung’s disclosure remains incomplete under Paragraph 12(a) of the Protective Order, and
there are questions about the accuracy of what Samsung has disclosed so far.
For these reasons, it appears that motion practice is necessary to resolve the parties’ dispute.
It is possible that Samsung’s moving papers will inform our position or shed light on
potential compromises. In any event, in terms of scheduling, we can agree to a modified
version of the schedule you propose. We would agree to the following:
Monday, January 30th
Friday, February 3rd
Tuesday, February 7th
Please let us know if that is acceptable to Samsung.
/s/ Marc J. Pernick
Marc J. Pernick
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?