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

Filing 735

RESPONSE (re #702 MOTION to Compel Apple's Re-Noticed Motion to Compel Timely Production of Foreign-Language and Other Documents in Advance of Related Depositions ) filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Rachel Herrick Kassabian In Support of Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Motion to Compel, #2 Declaration of Joby Martin In Support of Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Motion to Compel, #3 Declaration of Alexander B. Binder In Support of Samsung's Opposition to Apple's Motion to Compel)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 2/16/2012)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)
 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]
 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
 Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
th
 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5 Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

 Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417)
[e-mail]
 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
 INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION


 APPLE INC., a California corporation,

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)



DECLARATION OF RACHEL HERRICK
KASSABIAN IN SUPPORT OF
SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S
MOTION TO COMPEL



Plaintiff,
vs.

 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,

Defendant.


Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:

March 6, 2012
10:00 a.m.
Courtroom 5, 4th Floor
Hon. Paul S. Grewal




02198.51855/4598864.6

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
KASSABIAN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION
TO APPLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL

1

I, Rachel Herrick Kassabian, declare as follows:



1.

I am a partner in the law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP,

 counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung
 Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”). I submit this declaration in
 support of Samsung’s Opposition to Apple’s Motion to Compel Time Production of Foreign Language and Other Documents in Advance of Related Depositions (“Apple’s Motion to
 Compel”). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration, except as
 otherwise noted, and, if called upon as a witness, I could and would testify thereto.


2.

I am informed and believe that depositions have been occurring in this lawsuit

 since at least July 2011, and the depositions of Samsung’s Korea-based witnesses have been
 occurring since at least November 2011.


3.

During a meet and confer between the parties on September 23, 2011, it was

 counsel for Samsung who first raised the issue of a “five-day rule” for producing documents in
 advance of inventor productions. Apple initially refused to agree to anything more than a four day rule, despite knowing that the majority of Samsung’s inventors were Korean.


4.

In late 2011, Apple noticed 37 individual depositions. Samsung offered to begin

 the depositions during the month of December 2011, but Apple refused.


5.

As of the date of this declaration, I am informed and believe that Apple has

 served at least 90 deposition notices of Samsung’s current and former employees, and has
 deposed an additional 25 inventors for Samsung’s patents-in-suit.


6.

Since the Court’s December 22, 2011 Order setting the “three-day rule” for the

 production of documents relating to depositions, Apple has served 58 individual notices of
 deposition. Thirty-eight of those notices—nearly all targeting Samsung witnesses in Korea—
 were served before Apple filed its Motion to Compel.


7.

Apple has served deposition notices for many senior executives at Samsung,

 including Dale Sohn, the President and CEO of Samsung Telecommunications America; Gee
 Sung Choi, the Chairman and CEO of Samsung Electronics Co.; and Jong Kyu Shin, the
 President of the Mobile Communications division of Samsung Electronics Co.


02198.51855/4598864.6

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
KASSABIAN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION
TO APPLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL

-1-

1

8.

To date, Apple also has served ten Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notices. Seven of

2 these notices were served after Apple filed its motion for a protective order against Samsung’s
3 Rule 30(b)(6) deposition notice (which contained 229 topics). In total, Apple’s Rule 30(b)(6)
4 notices list nearly 250 deposition topics.
Apple’s Failure to Meet and Confer

5
6

9.

On January 10, 2012, Apple sent a letter to Samsung demanding, for the first

7 time, that Samsung agree to produce each deponent’s Korean-language documents ten days in
8 advance of each related deposition. Apple demanded Samsung’s commitment to this new “ten9 day rule” by 9:00 a.m. the next day. This letter did not address English-language documents.
10 Apple had served 43 deposition notices prior to sending this letter.
11

10.

On January 13, 2012, I sent a letter to counsel for Apple explaining that a ten-day

12 rule would be unworkable due to the substantial burdens in collecting, translating, reviewing and
13 producing documents responsive to Apple’s broad document requests. In this letter I
14 communicated Samsung’s willingness to reach some sort of compromise concerning the
15 timetable for deposition-related productions. Apple did not respond to this offer.
16

11.

On January 16, 2012, Samsung and Apple held a meet and confer session

17 between lead counsel, during which Apple stated that it would file a motion requesting
18 reconsideration of the Court’s December 22, 2011 Order unless Samsung agreed to Apple’s ten19 day rule. Samsung again responded that while a ten-day rule was unworkable, it was willing to
20 discuss other arrangements. Apple refused to discuss any compromises. Apple never raised the
21 issue of English-language document production during the Lead Counsel Meet and Confer. To
22 the best of my knowledge, the first time Samsung learned of this request was when Apple
23 disclosed it in its filed motion to compel.
24

Samsung Offers Apple Additional Time For Witnesses Where Documents Were

25

Produced After the Three-Day Deadline

26

12.

Due to technical difficulties at its vendor, Samsung was not able to meet the

27 three-day deadline for Samsung employee Junho Park. Apple received the documents two days
28
02198.51855/4598864.6

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
KASSABIAN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION
TO APPLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL

-2-

1 in advance of the Park deposition. Samsung offered to reschedule Mr. Park’s deposition to
2 avoid a dispute, but Apple elected not to do so.
3

13.

In response to Apple’s demand, Samsung engineer Wookyun Kho has agreed to

4 sit for a second day of deposition on March 4, 2012, which will be nearly two months after his
5 custodial documents were produced.
6

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the

7 foregoing is true and correct.
8

Executed on February 15, 2012, at San Francisco, California.

9
10
11

Rachel Herrick Kassabian

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4598864.6

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
KASSABIAN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION
TO APPLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL

-3-