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

Filing 742

REPLY (re #738 MOTION to Shorten Time ) filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Mia Mazza in Support of Apple's Reply in Support of Motion to Shorten Time re "Apex" Witnesses, #2 Exhibit A)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 2/17/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
[e-mail]
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
[e-mail]
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

WILLIAM F. LEE
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

10
11

Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN JOSE DIVISION

16
17

APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

18
19
20
21
22

v.
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.,

Case No.

11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

DECLARATION OF MIA MAZZA
IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING
ON MOTION TO COMPEL
DEPOSITIONS OF 14 OF
SAMSUNG’S PURPORTED
“APEX” WITNESSES

23
Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
MAZZA DECL. ISO REPLY ISO APPLE’S MOT. TO SHORTEN TIME
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3108871

Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:

February 28, 2012
10:00 a.m.
Courtroom 5, 4th Floor
Hon. Paul S. Grewal

1

I, Mia Mazza, declare as follows:

2

1.

I am a partner in the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel for Apple Inc.

3

(“Apple”). I am licensed to practice law in the State of California. Unless otherwise indicated, I

4

have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein or understand them to be true from

5

members of my litigation team. I make this Declaration in support of Apple’s Reply in Support

6

of its Motion to Shorten Time For Briefing and Hearing on Apple’s Motion to Compel

7

Depositions of 14 of Samsung’s Purported “Apex” Witnesses (“Motion to Shorten Time”).

8

2. It was not until February 3 that Samsung notified Apple that it was pursuing apex

9

objections to 22 out of 23 witnesses. With one exception, Samsung had asserted boilerplate

10

objections to the 23 witnesses, including boilerplate apex objections for some of those witnesses.

11

Samsung then purported to engage with Apple in attempting to schedule those depositions. The

12

sole exception was the head of Samsung Telecommunications America. Samsung sent a letter on

13

January 13 claiming apex protection for this single witness and asking Apple to withdraw his

14

deposition notice. As Apple moved forward to pursue scheduling of the other 22 noticed

15

Samsung witnesses’ depositions, Apple did not pursue scheduling of the head of STA’s

16

deposition. Apple resumed seeking this witness’s deposition only after taking three depositions

17

of lower-level witnesses who failed to provide useful testimony about Samsung’s finances.

18

Samsung gave no comparable notice for any other witness until it sent its February 3 letter. (See

19

Declaration of Mia Mazza in Support of Apple’s Motion to Shorten Time (“Mazza Shortening

20

Declaration”) ¶¶ 2–4; Declaration of Mia Mazza in Support of Apple’s Motion to Compel

21

(“Mazza MTC Declaration”) Ex. 5.)

22

3. Apple diligently pursued this issue once Samsung sent its February 3 letter regarding

23

purported apex witnesses. As detailed in the Mazza Shortening Declaration, once Samsung sent

24

its February 3 letter as to the 23 purported apex witnesses, Apple (1) raised the issue at the

25

February 6, lead trial counsel meet and confer, (2) followed up with a detailed thirteen-page letter

26

on February 9 explaining its grounds for deposing those witnesses, and (3) sent an additional

27

letter on February 12. (Mazza Shortening Declaration ¶¶ 5–7; Mazza Compel Declaration Exs. 5,

28
MAZZA DECL. ISO REPLY ISO APPLE’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
Case No. 4:11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3108871

1

1

7.) Apple then (4) made the issue its highest priority at the February 14 and 15 lead trial counsel

2

meet and confers.

3

4. Apple respectfully seeks to bring its motion on shortened time mindful of the burdens

4

that discovery motions on shortened time place upon this Court and the public. Apple has sought

5

a schedule that would complete the parties’ briefing on the apex issue as early as February 20, to

6

allow the Court’s clerks substantial time to review the parties’ papers in advance of the proposed

7

February 28 hearing date. Apple’s proposed schedule does not include a reply brief. Apple

8

advised Samsung of its proposed briefing schedule on February 9, the morning of the 15th, and

9

the morning of the 16th. (Mazza Shortening Declaration ¶¶ 13–15; Mazza MTC Declaration Ex.

10

5.) Samsung never suggested an alternative. On the morning of February 16, Apple notified

11

Samsung that it would propose a hearing date on February 28 rather than February 21, and invited

12

Samsung to propose an alternative briefing schedule. Apple even postponed its filing of its

13

papers from 9:00 a.m. until noon so that it could receive a suggested briefing schedule from

14

Samsung. Samsung, however, declined to propose an alternative schedule. Nor does its

15

Opposition propose an alternative. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of the

16

February 15 and 16, 2012, email thread in which these communications occurred.

17

5. This Court has shortened time on several prior discovery motions brought by both

18

parties since October 2011. (See Dkt Nos. 287, 332, 350, 477, 499, 538, 566, 688.) Most

19

recently, the Court granted Apple’s Motion to Shorten time in connection with a Motion to

20

Compel, and then vacated that Order. (Dkt No. 699.)

21
22
23
24

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
February 17, 2012, at San Francisco, California.
/s/ Mia Mazza
Mia Mazza

25
26
27
28
MAZZA DECL. ISO REPLY ISO APPLE’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
Case No. 4:11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3108871

2

1
2

ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE
I, Michael A. Jacobs, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this

3

Declaration. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Mia Mazza has

4

concurred in this filing.

5

Dated: February 17, 2012

/s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Michael A. Jacobs

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MAZZA DECL. ISO REPLY ISO APPLE’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3108871

3