Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
755
*** FILED IN ERROR. REFER TO DOCUMENT #756 . *** REPLY (re #723 MOTION to Compel Apples Re-Noticed Motion to Compel Timely Production of Foreign-Language Documents in Advance of Related Depositions, #682 MOTION to Compel Apple's Motion to Compel Timely Production of Foreign-Language and Other Documents in Advance of Related Depositions ) filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Mazza Declaration in Support of Motion to Compel Timely Foreign Production, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 2/24/2012) Modified on 2/24/2012 (feriab, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
hmcelhinny@mofo.com
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
mjacobs@mofo.com
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
jtaylor@mofo.com
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
atucher@mofo.com
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
rhung@mofo.com
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
jasonbartlett@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
WILLIAM F. LEE
william.lee@wilmerhale.com
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 526-6000
Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: (650) 858-6000
Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
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.,
23
Defendants.
24
Case No.
11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
DECLARATION OF MIA MAZZA
IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO COMPEL TIMELY
PRODUCTION OF FOREIGNLANGUAGE AND OTHER
DOCUMENTS IN ADVANCE OF
DEPOSITIONS
Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:
March 6, 2012
10:00 a.m.
Courtroom 5, 4th Floor
Hon. Paul S. Grewal
25
26
27
28
MAZZA DECL. ISO REPLY ISO APPLE’S MOT. TO COMPEL TIMELY PRODN. OF DOCUMENTS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3110323
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 Compel Timely Production of Foreign Language and Other Documents (“Motion
7
to Compel”).
8
9
10
Samsung’s Pattern of Tardy Productions of Large Volumes of Documents in this
Action Has Continued.
2.
Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a table prepared by my litigation team that lists
11
each Samsung witness deposed by Apple in Apple’s offensive case to date, the date and time of
12
the witness’s deposition, the date and time of any productions of documents sourced to that
13
witness, and the volume of each production in terms of both documents and pages.
14
3.
As set forth in Exhibit A, Samsung has produced 53,340 Korean-language
15
documents totaling 498,355 pages less than 10 days before depositions, and 8,758 English-
16
language documents totaling 84,792 pages less than 5 days before depositions. Of these tardy
17
Korean-language document productions, 42,355 documents totaling 303,595 pages were
18
produced less than 5 days before depositions, and 25,777 documents totaling 202,937 pages were
19
produced less than 3 days before depositions.
20
4.
Samsung’s production of documents in just a few days before depositions has
21
continued through this week. The deposition of Tim Benner took place on February 22, 2012.
22
Samsung dumped 3,059 documents, totaling 30,636 pages, on Apple less than 3 days before the
23
deposition, on February 19.
24
5.
Similarly, the deposition of SangEun Lee took place on February 23, 2012, in
25
Korea. Samsung dumped 730 Korean-language documents, totaling 16,968 pages, on Apple less
26
than 3 days before the deposition, on February 20.
27
28
6.
The deposition of Dae Woon Meyong was scheduled to begin on February 22,
2012, in Korea. Samsung dumped 4,393 documents, totaling 45,886 pages, on Apple less than a
MAZZA DECL. ISO REPLY ISO APPLE’S MOT. TO COMPEL TIMELY PRODN. OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. 4:11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3110323
1
1
day before the deposition. To Samsung’s credit, Samsung agreed to reschedule the deposition to
2
a later date. As the discovery period comes to a close, however, there will be few opportunities to
3
continue that practice in the future.
4
7.
The deposition of Heon Seok Lee was scheduled to begin on February 23, 2012, in
5
Korea. Samsung dumped 3,524 Korean-language documents, totaling 39,158 pages, on Apple
6
just 4 days before the deposition. Due to this late production, and for additional reasons, Apple
7
requested that the deposition of Mr. Lee be rescheduled to a later date. Samsung refused to
8
reschedule Mr. Lee’s deposition.
9
10
11
Samsung Has Produced Tens of Thousands of Pages under the Bates Prefix for the
ITC Investigation, Masking the Fact That They Are Being Produced Late.
8.
In a parallel action to this litigation pending in the Northern District of California,
12
Apple is pursuing patent infringement claims against Samsung before the International Trade
13
Commission in Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No.
14
337-TA-796. Samsung produces documents in this Northern District of California action under
15
the Bates prefix “SAMNDCA.” Samsung produces documents in the ITC action under the Bates
16
prefix “S-ITC.” The parties have agreed that documents produced in one action may be cross-
17
used in the other. The parties have, however, generally observed the distinction between the two
18
cases and have been producing custodial documents under the Bates prefix of the case in which
19
the witnesses are being deposed, rather than just using the two different prefixes interchangeably
20
or randomly.
21
9.
Samsung witness AhYoung Kim was deposed on January 11, 2012, in this action
22
and on January 13, 2012, in the ITC investigation. As set forth in Exhibit A, in addition to the
23
44,912 pages of Korean-language documents sourced to AhYoung Kim that Samsung produced
24
on the eve of deposition under the N.D. Cal. Bates prefix, Samsung produced an additional 883
25
pages of Korean-language documents under the ITC Bates prefix on January 11, 12, 15, 18, and
26
23, 2012, as well as February 19 and 21, 2012.
27
28
10.
Samsung witness Justin Denison was deposed on December 16, 2011, in the ITC
investigation and on January 25, 2012, in this action. As set forth in Exhibit A, in addition to the
MAZZA DECL. ISO REPLY ISO APPLE’S MOT. TO COMPEL TIMELY PRODN. OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. 4:11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3110323
2
1
18,992 pages of English-language documents sourced to Mr. Denison that Samsung produced less
2
than five days before his deposition under the N.D. Cal. Bates prefix, Samsung produced an
3
additional 1,233 pages under the ITC Bates prefix on February 17, 2012, nearly a month after his
4
deposition in this action..
5
11.
Samsung witness Qi Ling was deposed on February 1, 2012, in this action and was
6
not noticed for deposition in the ITC investigation. As set forth in Exhibit A, in addition to the
7
Korean-language documents sourced to Qi Ling that Samsung produced less than three days
8
before his deposition in this action under the N.D. Cal. Bates prefix, Samsung produced an
9
additional 19 pages under the ITC Bates prefix on January 23, 2012, and February 21, 2012.
10
12.
Samsung witness Tim Sheppard was deposed on December 21, 2011, in the ITC
11
investigation and January 24, 2012, in this action. As set forth in Exhibit A, in addition to the
12
35,011 pages of English-language documents sourced to Mr. Sheppard that Samsung produced on
13
the eve of deposition under the N.D. Cal. Bates prefix, Samsung produced an additional 37,170
14
pages under the ITC Bates prefix on January 25 and 26, 2012, and February 1, 2012.
15
13.
Samsung witness Wookyun Kho was deposed on January 12, 2012, in this action,
16
and was not noticed for deposition in the ITC investigation. As set forth in Exhibit A, in addition
17
to the 41,109 pages of Korean-language documents sourced to Wookyun Kho that Samsung
18
produced on the eve of deposition (or after deposition) under the N.D. Cal. Bates prefix, Samsung
19
produced an additional 147,522 pages under the ITC Bates prefix on January 11, 2012, through
20
February 19, 2012.
21
14.
Samsung witness Jinsoo Kim was deposed in Korea on February 1, 2012, in this
22
action, and on February 2, 2012, in the ITC investigation. As set forth in Exhibit A, in addition to
23
the Korean-language documents sourced to Jinsoo Kim that Samsung produced on the eve of
24
deposition under the N.D. Cal. Bates prefix, Samsung produced an additional 320 pages under the
25
ITC Bates prefix on February 2, 2012.
26
15.
In total, as set forth in Exhibit A, for the above six witnesses Samsung produced
27
187,147 pages in the ITC proceedings after Apple had completed its depositions of those
28
witnesses. There is nothing about these late-produced documents that would justify their being
MAZZA DECL. ISO REPLY ISO APPLE’S MOT. TO COMPEL TIMELY PRODN. OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. 4:11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3110323
3
1
produced in the ITC action rather than in this action in the Northern District of California.
2
Samsung never brought to Apple’s attention the fact that Samsung was producing these Northern
3
District of California custodians’ documents after their depositions, under an ITC Bates prefix.
4
Apple’s Miniscule Productions Shortly Before or After Depositions of Apple
5
6
Witnesses Pale in Comparison.
16.
At the beginning of the discovery period in this case, the parties agreed to observe
7
a five-day rule, at least for English-language documents, under which a custodian’s relevant
8
documents would be produced no fewer than five days before the custodian’s deposition.
9
Throughout the discovery period, Apple has substantially completed its production of custodial
10
documents on the fifth day before each deposition. Even after counsel for Samsung began
11
claiming the existence of a “three-day rule,” Apple has continued to observe a five-day rule.
12
17. Samsung’s opposition asserts that Apple produced documents sourced to Brian Land
13
after the deposition concluded. Mr. Land was deposed in this action on October 20, 2011.
14
During the deposition, it came to light that two of Mr. Land’s notebooks had been collected but
15
not produced. Counsel for Apple immediately searched for, and located for the first time, the
16
notebooks, and produced them the very same evening. In total, that production was 82 pages.
17
18.
Samsung’s opposition asserts that Apple produced documents sourced to Richard
18
Williamson after his deposition concluded. Mr. Williamson was deposed in this action on
19
October 28, 2011. A single 5-page document relevant to Mr. Williamson was produced within
20
the following 24 hours. Mr. Williamson was deposed again in the ITC investigation on January
21
31, 2012. Samsung did not request additional time with Mr. Williamson following his ITC
22
deposition to ask questions about the 5-page document produced on the evening of his earlier
23
deposition.
24
19.
Samsung’s opposition asserts that Apple produced documents sourced to Steve
25
Christensen less than two days before Mr. Christensen’s deposition. Mr. Christensen was
26
deposed on October 26, 2011. On October 24, 2011, Apple produced two documents totaling 12
27
pages sourced to Mr. Christensen. When Apple produced those two documents, it called their
28
production to Samsung’s attention.
MAZZA DECL. ISO REPLY ISO APPLE’S MOT. TO COMPEL TIMELY PRODN. OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. 4:11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3110323
4
1
20.
Samsung’s opposition asserts that Apple produced documents sourced to Wayne
2
Westerman less than three days before his deposition. Mr. Westerman was deposed on October
3
31, 2011. On October 28, 2011, Apple produced 44 documents totaling 268 pages. When Apple
4
produced those 44 documents, it called their production to Samsung’s attention. Mr. Westerman
5
was deposed again in the ITC investigation on January 26, 2012. Samsung did not request
6
additional time with Mr. Westerman following his ITC deposition to ask questions about the 44
7
documents produced shortly before his earlier deposition.
8
21.
Samsung’s opposition asserts that Apple produced more than 17,000 pages of
9
documents sourced to Richard Dinh on February 15, 2012, when his deposition was scheduled for
10
February 16, 2012. This is approximately true. The late production was due to an exception error
11
affecting about 600 documents that caused them to be designated as privileged when they were
12
not. As soon as counsel for Apple located this error, it brought the error to the attention of
13
counsel for Samsung and advised that the late production was forthcoming. Counsel for Apple
14
also delivered a hard copy, created on a rush basis costing thousands of dollars, to counsel for
15
Samsung that evening. At the conclusion of Mr. Dinh’s deposition, counsel for Samsung noted
16
the late production but did not ask to keep the deposition open pending review of the late-
17
produced documents.
18
22.
Samsung’s opposition brief asserts that Apple produced documents sourced to its
19
28 of its inventor deponents several weeks after the inventors were produced. This is correct, for
20
the reasons set forth in Paragraphs 26 and 27 below.
21
23.
During the month of October 2011, Samsung deposed approximately 50 Apple
22
employees and patent prosecutors. Apple substantially completed its production of documents
23
sourced to each deponent five days before his or her deposition. Apple disclosed all of the search
24
terms and date cutoffs being applied to all but one category of witness on or about October 7,
25
2011. Apple disclosed all of the search terms and date cutoffs being applied to the last category
26
of witness on or about November 10, 2011.
27
28
24.
In November and December 2011, Samsung requested that Apple apply additional
search terms to the documents of custodians whose depositions took place in October 2011.
MAZZA DECL. ISO REPLY ISO APPLE’S MOT. TO COMPEL TIMELY PRODN. OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. 4:11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3110323
5
1
Apple, in the spirit of compromise and transparency, agreed to apply most of the search terms
2
requested by Samsung. One of the sets of search terms that Apple agreed to apply was the word
3
“Samsung” and the names of Samsung’s products at issue in this case. Apple applied those
4
search terms and produced the relevant, responsive, non-privileged documents located thereby.
5
Since Samsung did not request that Apple apply these additional search terms until well after the
6
depositions of those custodians were complete, the documents produced as a result of applying
7
the additional search terms were produced well after the custodians’ depositions.
8
9
Samsung Should Have Produced These Documents a Long Time Ago, Not on the Eve
of Depositions.
10
25.
Most of the custodial documents that Samsung has been producing on the eve of
11
its witnesses’ depositions are documents that Apple requested months ago. Apple issued its first
12
217 Requests for Production in August 2011. Apple issued an additional 213 Requests for
13
Production in September and October 2011. And Apple issued an additional 97 Requests for
14
Production in November 2011.
15
26.
At the outset of the discovery period in this case, Apple anticipated and made
16
reasonable preparations for reviewing and processing Korean-language documents produced by
17
Samsung. Apple expected Samsung to diligently begin collecting and producing responsive
18
documents at the time Apple’s document requests were served, rather than waiting for the entry
19
of a Court Order. Had Samsung done so, Apple’s attorneys would have had sufficient time to
20
translate and review documents meaningfully in advance of the depositions of Samsung’s
21
witnesses.
22
23
Samsung Is Not Offering to Make Witnesses Available for Additional Deposition
Time.
24
27. Samsung’s opposition asserts that Samsung offered to postpone the deposition of
25
Junho Park due to document production issues but Apple refused. I am unable to locate any
26
evidence of such an offer. Samsung typically has not been willing to reschedule depositions
27
based on late document production, citing its self-imposed “three-day rule.” The one exception
28
MAZZA DECL. ISO REPLY ISO APPLE’S MOT. TO COMPEL TIMELY PRODN. OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. 4:11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3110323
6
1
has been Dae Woon Meyong, where the production was so large and so tardy it would have been
2
impossible to justify keeping the deposition on calendar as scheduled.
3
28. Samsung’s opposition asserts that Apple “requested another day with Mr. [Wookyun]
4
Kho, and he has agreed to make himself available again on March 4, 2012.” What this
5
representation conceals is that Samsung forced Apple to write numerous meet-and-confer letters,
6
discuss the matter at a lead trial counsel meeting, and come within 24 hours of filing a motion to
7
compel a second day of Mr. Kho’s deposition, before Samsung agreed to make him available for
8
a second day of deposition.
9
29. During the month of February 2012, Apple has arranged for a certain number of its
10
attorneys and staff to reside in Korea, and has arranged for deposition facilities and other
11
accommodations in Korea, until a date certain. If Apple’s attorneys are required to remain in
12
Korea longer than scheduled to take additional depositions due to late productions, Apple will be
13
prejudiced financially.
14
15
The Parties Adequately Met and Conferred Regarding Timely Production of
Documents before Depositions.
16
30. The parties discussed the issue of timely production of documents before depositions
17
at the lead trial counsel meeting on January 16, 2012. Counsel for Apple stated that Apple would
18
like Samsung to produce Korean-language documents ten days before depositions. Counsel for
19
Samsung stated that Samsung would not agree to a ten-day rule, and would not agree to any rule
20
that provided different time periods for foreign- and English-language documents. :Counsel for
21
Samsung was adamant that it believed a three-day rule was in effect. Lead trial counsel agreed
22
that the meet-and-confer requirement had been met.
23
31. Counsel for Samsung sent correspondence on this topic to counsel for Apple on
24
January 13, 2012, in advance of the lead trial counsel meeting. The letter reiterated that Samsung
25
believed that a three-day rule was in effect pursuant to Court order, and stated that Apple would
26
need to seek reconsideration in order to get a different rule. The letter further indicated that
27
Samsung was not willing to enter into an agreement that would require foreign-language
28
documents to be produced on a different schedule than English-language documents.
MAZZA DECL. ISO REPLY ISO APPLE’S MOT. TO COMPEL TIMELY PRODN. OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. 4:11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3110323
7
1
32.
In the interest of resolving this matter without further Court intervention, Apple
2
has proposed to Samsung a compromise under which the parties would agree to substantially
3
complete their productions of custodial Korean-language documents four days in advance of
4
relevant depositions. Under this compromise, the parties would further agree to make available
5
for continued deposition at a later date any witness whose documents were produced outside of
6
the agreed time frames. Samsung has taken the matter under consideration.
7
8
9
10
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
February 23, 2012, at San Francisco, California.
/s/ Mia Mazza
Mia Mazza
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 MOT. TO COMPEL TIMELY PRODN. OF DOCUMENTS
Case No. 4:11-cv-01846-LHK
sf-3110323
8
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 23, 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 MOT. TO COMPEL TIMELY PRODN. OF DOCUMENTS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3110323
9
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?