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

Filing 800

MOTION Administrative Motion for Relief from Lead Counsel Meet and Confer Requirement or Extension of Deadline to File Motions filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. Responses due by 3/26/2012. Replies due by 4/2/2012. (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit 3, #5 Exhibit 4, #6 Exhibit 5, #7 Exhibit 6, #8 Exhibit 7, #9 Proposed Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 3/12/2012)

EXHIBIT 4

quinn emanuel

trial lawyers | los angeles

865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
[phone]
WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
[e-mail]

March 9, 2012
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Marc J. Pernick, Esq.
Morrison & Foerster
755 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018
Re:

Apple v. Samsung Elecs. Co. et al., Case No. 11-cv-1846 LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Marc,
I write in response to your March 6, 2012 letter proposing to schedule the next lead counsel meet
and confer on March 26, 2012. As you are aware, the last day to file discovery motions in this
matter is March 15, 2012. See Civil L.R. 37-3. There are numerous discovery issues that have
arisen since the last lead counsel meet and confer on February 14-15, 2012 or require further
substantive discussion. We take the Court's order requiring an in-person lead counsel meet and
confer seriously. Apple has not agreed to make Mr. McElhinny available during a single
business day between the close of fact discovery and the deadline for filing any discovery
motions. Indeed, Apple proposed a date 18 days after the close of fact discovery, and 11 days
after the motion filing deadline. This is inconsistent with the deadlines set by the Court.
Moreover, we are still waiting on Apple to provide a response to dozens of important discovery
issues, including but not limited to:
•

The ten items relating to functionality, source code, and missing custodial productions
listed on pages 3 and 4 of my February 13 letter.

•

Apple's continuing refusal to provide witnesses on many of Samsung's 30(b)(6) topics.
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
NEW YORK | 51

Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SAN FRANCISCO | 50

WASHINGTON, DC | 1299

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 825, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2400 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Building, 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MANNHEIM | Erzbergerstraße 5, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MOSCOW | Voentorg Building, 3rd Floor, 10 Vozdvizhenka Street, Moscow 125009, Russia | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
LONDON | 16

•

Apple's failure to produce several categories of information related to functionality of
Apple's product design, that we learned about in recent depositions, as discussed in my
February 25 letter.

•

Apple's failure to produce information related to the Android Immersion Room,
discussed in my February 28 letter.

•

Apple's failure to respond to our proposal regarding deposition cross use, discussed in my
February 28 letter.

•

Apple's failure to provide several categories of information relevant to Apple's claimed
designs that we learned about for the first time in Ive's and Forstall's recent depositions,
discussed in my February 28 letter.

•

Apple's failure to prepare Mr. Skinder to testify on the topics as to which he had been
noticed, and the corresponding failure to provide a new witness prepared on those topics,
discussed in my March 1 letter.

•

Apple's failure to produce relevant documents that we learned about at the recent Joswiak
deposition, discussed in my letter of March 2.

•

Apple's refusal to produce Simon Prakash for deposition, discussed in my letter of March
5.

•

Apple's failure to make a complete NeXT source code production, discussed in my letter
of March 6.

•

Apple's failure to produce licensing documents related to Apple's sale of iPhones and
iPads, discussed in my March 7 letter.

•

Apple's failure to produce custodial documents relating to Ternus, discussed in several
letters.

Clearly, after all this sandbagging, Apple's plan is to run out the clock on Samsung's discovery
issues. This is improper. Please propose a weekday or two that Mr. McElhinny can make
himself available before March 15, 2012.
Kind regards,
/s/ Diane C. Hutnyan
Diane C. Hutnyan

2