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

Filing 769

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Apple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order, #2 [Redacted Public Version] Apple Inc.'s Reply in Support of Motion for Rule 37(b)(2) Sanctions, #3 [Redacted Public Version] Reply Declaration of Minn Chung in Support of Apple's Motion for Rule 37(b)(2) Sanctions, #4 [Redacted Public Version] Erik J. Olson Reply Declaration in Support of Apple's Motion for Rule 37(b)(2) Sanctions)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 3/5/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

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]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN JOSE DIVISION

17

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

Plaintiff,
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants.

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
REPLY DECLARATION OF
MINN CHUNG IN SUPPORT IN
SUPPORT OF APPLE’S MOTION FOR
RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS FOR
SAMSUNG’S VIOLATION OF TWO
DISCOVERY ORDERS
Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:

March 27, 2012
10:00 a.m.
Courtroom 5, 4th Floor
Hon. Paul S. Grewal

25
26

REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION

27
28
REPLY DECLARATION OF MINN CHUNG ISO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3115376

1

I, MINN CHUNG, declare as follows:

2

1.

I am an attorney at the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel of record in

3

this action for plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”). I submit this reply declaration in support of Apple

4

Inc.’s Reply In Support Of Motion For Rule 37(B)(2) Sanctions For Samsung’s Violation Of Two

5

Discovery Orders (the “Reply”). I had also submitted a declaration in support of Apple Inc.’s

6

Motion For Rule 37(B)(2) Sanctions For Samsung’s Violation Of Two Discovery Orders (the

7

“Motion”) filed on February 8, 2012. Unless otherwise indicated, I have personal knowledge of

8

the matters set forth below. If called as a witness I could and would testify competently as

9

follows:

10

2.

I am a native Korean speaker and proficient in written Korean language. I have a

11

Bachelor of Science degree in physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and spent

12

over 15 years developing technology products, both hardware and software, before attending law

13

school.

14

3.

Since Apple filed its Motion on February 8, 2012, Samsung has produced

15

documents from its Designer Custodians that reference Apple products, including the documents

16

described below, which were required to be produced by October 7, 2011 under the Court’s Order

17

of September 28, 2011, and then, after Samsung failed to comply, were required to be produced

18

by December 31, 2011 under the Court’s Order of December 22, 2011.

19

4.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

5.

27
28
REPLY DECLARATION OF MINN CHUNG ISO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3115376

1

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

6.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

7.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

8.

26
27
28
REPLY DECLARATION OF MINN CHUNG ISO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3115376

2

1
2
3

9.

In addition, since February 8, 2012, Samsung has produced documents showing

4

Samsung’s analysis of and consideration of Apple’s products from sources other than the

5

Designer Custodians, including the documents described below, which were required to be

6

produced by January 15, 2012 under the Court's Order of December 22, 2011.

7

10.

8
9
10

11.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

12.

18
19
20
21
22
23

13.

24
25
26
27
28
REPLY DECLARATION OF MINN CHUNG ISO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3115376

3

1
2

14.

On February 22, a number of highly relevant documents that show analysis and

comparison of Apple products by Samsung were produced

3
4

15.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

16.

14
15
16
17
18

17.

19
20
21
22

18.

23
24
25
26
27
28
REPLY DECLARATION OF MINN CHUNG ISO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3115376

4

1

19.

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

20.

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

21.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

22.

On February 24, Samsung produced a highly relevant document

that should have been produced by January 15, 2012 under the December 22 Order.

24
25
26
27
28
REPLY DECLARATION OF MINN CHUNG ISO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3115376

5

1

23.

Samsung documents discussed in paragraphs 10 to 22 above are only a few

2

examples of highly relevant copying documents that should have been produced by January 15,

3

2012 but not produced until the second half of February.

4

24.

Attached hereto as Exhibit Q is a chart summarizing Samsung’s production of all

5

documents sourced to the Designer Custodians from the beginning of this case until January 24,

6

2012. The chart also provides a summary of Samsung’s production of documents mentioning the

7

iPhone or the iPad among these documents. When compared to Exhibit C of my declaration

8

submitted in support of Apple’s Motion, which provided a summary of Samsung’s production of

9

documents mentioning Apple or Apple products, Exhibit R shows that the effect of searching

10

only for Apple’s products and not for “Apple” is negligible. In fact, of the 84 documents

11

produced between October 14, 2011 and December 31, 2011 from the Designer Custodians and

12

mentioning Apple or its products, 75 refer to the iPhone or the iPad. Similarly, of the 1034

13

documents produced after December 31, 2011 from the Designer Custodians and mentioning

14

Apple or its products, 984 refer to the iPhone or the iPad. Hence, of the 1,118 late-produced

15

documents referenced in Apple’s Motion as produced from the Designer Custodians and

16

mentioning Apple or its products, 1,059 refer to the iPhone or iPad.

17

25.

More than 400 survey-related documents mentioning Apple or its products were

18

produced by Samsung in February 2012 sourced to

19

Samsung produced

20
21
22
23

. On or around January 1, 2012

Attached hereto as Exhibit R and Exhibit S are true and correct copies of excerpts
of two documents
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct and that this
declaration was executed this 5th day of March 2012, in San Francisco, California.

24
25

/s/ Minn Chung
Minn Chung

26
27
28
REPLY DECLARATION OF MINN CHUNG ISO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3115376

6

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 Minn Chung has

4

concurred in this filing.

5

Dated: March 5, 2012

6

/s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Michael A. Jacobs

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
REPLY DECLARATION OF MINN CHUNG ISO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3115376

7