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

Filing 715

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)

Download PDF
425 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94105-2482 TELEPHONE: 415.268.7000 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 November 1, 2011 Writer’s Direct Contact 415.268.6096 Via E-Mail Rachel Kassabian Kevin Johnson Victoria Maroulis Quinn Emanuel 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, CA 94065 Re: 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 sf-3065306 November 1, 2011 Page Two 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 this search. 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 appropriate. 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 session. Best regards, /s/ Wesley E. Overson sf-3065306

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?