Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Declaration of Marc J. Pernick in Support of #729 Opposition/Response to Motion, CORRECTION OF DOCKET #728 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)(Related document(s) #729 ) (Hung, Richard) (Filed on 2/13/2012)
755 PAGE MILL ROAD
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
January 27, 2012
Writer’s Direct Contact
By Email (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Rachel Herrick Kassabian
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Fifth Floor
Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Apple v. Samsung, Case No. 11-cv-1846-LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal.)
This responds to your January 25, 2012 letter to Mia Mazza regarding expert witnesses.
Most of your letter is devoted to argumentative rhetoric, unfounded accusations, and issues
that have been resolved. It would be unproductive to spill more ink responding to those
aspects of your letter, other than to say that they are incorrect and mischaracterize Apple’s
conduct in this litigation. Apple has not been “nitpicking” about the materials to which
Samsung’s experts should have access, or attempting to delay or impede Samsung’s
development of its defense.
To the contrary, as one example, the course of events relating to Itay Sherman demonstrates
that Apple’s concerns have been valid and raised in good faith. In that context, the Court
held on December 22, 2011 that Mr. Sherman should not have access to certain types of
Apple documents because he operates a business that competes with Apple. This issue has
been resolved. It is Samsung––through its recent motion for “clarification”––that keeps
prolonging the proceedings and extending the dialogue.
In addition, your letter refers to Apple’s expert Peter Bressler and notes that Samsung has
withdrawn its objections to him. We disclosed Mr. Bressler to Samsung three months ago.
That Samsung has just now withdrawn its objection to Mr. Bressler does not somehow show
that Samsung is bending over backwards to accommodate Apple.
With respect to Samsung’s proposed expert Robert Anders, we appreciate the additional
information you have now provided to us. We hereby withdraw our objections concerning
January 27, 2012
That leaves Samsung’s proposed expert Samuel Lucente. As you know, Apple’s concerns
regarding Mr. Lucente stem from his ownership of pending patent applications that relate to
user interfaces in mobile phones. As we understand it, Samsung proposes giving
Mr. Lucente access to Apple confidential information on precisely this subject matter. Your
letter does not propose how the parties should address that problem. As result, we cannot at
this point withdraw our objection to Mr. Lucente.
/s/ Marc Pernick
S. Calvin Walden
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?