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

Filing 700

MOTION to Compel Apple to Respond to Samsung's Requests for Admission filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. Motion Hearing set for 3/6/2012 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal. Responses due by 2/14/2012. Replies due by 2/21/2012. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Scott Hall, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Proposed Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 1/31/2012)

EXHIBIT B

425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO
CALIFORNIA 94105-2482
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: 415.268.7522

MO RRI SO N & F O E RST E R L LP
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.
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

WWW.MOFO.COM

January 16, 2012

Writer’s Direct Contact
415.268.6615
[e-mail]

Via E-Mail ([e-mail])
Diane Hutnyan
Quinn Emanuel
865 South Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Re:

Apple v. Samsung, Case No. 11-cv-1846-LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Diane:
I write in response to your letter of January 7, 2012, regarding Apple’s Objections and
Responses to Samsung’s Second Set of Requests for Admission.
The purpose of Rule 36 is to permit simple, direct Requests for Admission seeking
authentication of documents or admissions that simplify a case and streamline the issues for
trial. Safeco Ins. Co. of Am. v. Rawstron, 181 F.R.D. 441, 445 (C.D. Cal. 1998). RFAs are
“not principally discovery devices,” and it is an abuse of the discovery process to pose RFAs
on issues in order to avoid interrogatory limits. Id. at 445-46; see also Anahuac Mgmt. v.
Mazer, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91488, at *15-16 (D. Nev. Aug. 16, 2011). Similarly,
requests for admission seeking legal conclusions and responses on complex issues are
inappropriate. Gem Acquisitionco, LLC v. Sorenson Group Holdings, 2010 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 40175, at *6-9 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 5, 2010).
Samsung’s Requests for Admission relating to design patent comparisons are flawed and
improper. They do not seek to simplify the case or streamline any relevant issues. Rather,
they inquire into Apple’s conclusion on the legal question of whether the “claimed designs”
in certain design patents are “substantially the same”—a legal standard—as the claimed
designs in other design patents. As set out in Apple’s objections to the Requests for
Admission at issue, such requests do not merely seek application of law to facts, but rather
admissions on conclusions of law.
Moreover, the vast majority of Samsung’s requests have no relevance to this case. Most do
not even ask Apple to compare alleged prior art to asserted design patents or to compare
asserted design patents to Samsung’s infringing designs. Instead, they ask Apple to compare
patents-in-suit to patents that are not at issue in the case, or to compare patents where neither

sf-3093176

Diane Hutnyan
January 16, 2012
Page Two
is at issue in the case. These requests therefore do not seek Apple’s admissions as to relevant
facts to streamline the issues in the case.
Samsung’s requests are also burdensome. To answer them, Apple would need to construe
the claims of 21 different design patents, only 6 of which are at issue in the case.
Samsung’s tactics are an improper use of requests for admission, unduly burdensome,
overbroad, and an abuse of the discovery process. Apple does not intend to amend its
responses with respect to Samsung’s Requests for Admission 101-190.
Sincerely,
/s/ Jason R. Bartlett
Jason R. Bartlett
cc:

Samuel Maselli
S. Calvin Walden
Peter Kolovos

sf-3093176