Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apple's Administration to File Documents Under Seal filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Apple Inc.'s Motion for Rule 37(B)(2) Sanctions for Samsung's Violation of Two Discovery Orders, #2 Declaration of Minn Cheung in Support of Apple's Motion for Sanctions, #3 Exhibit T to Chung Declaration, #4 Exhibit V to Chung Declaration, #5 Exhibit Y to Chung Declaration, #6 Exhibit Z to Chung Declaration, #7 Exhibit AA to Chung Declaration, #8 Proposed Order Granting Apple's Motion for Sanctions, #9 Proposed Order Granting Admin Motion)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 2/8/2012)
425 MARKET STREET
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
November 1, 2011
Writer’s Direct Contact
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co. et al. Case No. 11-cv-1846 LHK (N.D. Cal.)
CONFIDENTIAL—Subject to Protective Order
Dear Rachel, Kevin and Victoria:
This letter concerns Samsung’s production of documents pursuant to the Court’s September
28th Order. The parties have been discussing this issue for several weeks now. While some
of the issues have been resolved, Samsung has refused to supplement its production and to
provide pertinent information about its collection practices. As your latest letter of October
25th confirms, Samsung is unwilling to change its position on the following issues:
Samsung concedes that its search for survey documents was limited to U.S.
marketing documents even though the Court’s September 28th Order contains no
such limitation. Samsung has refused to search for other documents responsive to the
Court’s Order and has instead chosen to re-argue its objections to Apple’s original
requests. (See Letter from Kassabian to Overson dated Oct. 25, 2011.)
Even though the Court’s Order specifically requires Samsung to produce
documents from the files of individuals responsible for survey documents, Samsung’s
disclosure statement does not list any such individual. Samsung has so far refused to
identify the individuals whose files were searched for this category of documents.
(Id.) Apple is entitled to know the answer to this question to determine whether
Samsung has complied with the Court’s Order.
The Court’s Order requires Samsung to produce documents that reference
Apple’s products. As we have previously indicated to you, there is no reason why
November 1, 2011
Samsung’s designers and developers would use the term “Apple” except in reference
to Apple’s products. Indeed, Samsung stopped using the search term “Apple”
precisely because the search produced several “hits.” This decision ensured that
Samsung would not produce all pertinent documents. Please produce all responses to
In response, Samsung has demanded that Apple provide you “with a complete list of
all of the search terms Apple ‘sampled,’ …along with an explanation of why those
terms were rejected.” (See Letter from Jenkins to Overson dated Oct. 12, 1011.) As I
have stated previously, it is improper for you to make Samsung’s compliance with the
Court’s Order contingent on Apple’s response to your requests. In any event, your
request goes far beyond anything Apple is requesting from you, and we have already
provided you with the search terms that the Court ordered us to provide.
Samsung’s disclosure statement does not explain why Samsung used a
different method to search through the files of its hardware designers. So far,
Samsung has refused to explain this difference or state why this method was
We will discuss these topics with you tomorrow on our meet and confer. If we are unable to
resolve them, then we will need to schedule a lead counsel, in-person meet and confer
Wesley E. Overson
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?