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

Filing 801

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.(a Korean corporation), Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Proposed Order, #3 Exhibit Public Redaction Version of Samsung's Opposition, #4 Declaration Gordon Dec ISO Samsung's Opposition, #5 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Gordon's Dec, #6 Exhibit Exhibit 2 to Gordon's Dec, #7 Exhibit Exhibit 3 to Gordon's Dec, #8 Exhibit Exhibit 4 to Gordon's Dec, #9 Declaration Martin Dec ISO Samsung's Opposition, #10 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Martin's Dec, #11 Exhibit Exhibit 10 to Martin's Dec, #12 Exhibit Exhibit 11 to Martin's Dec, #13 Exhibit Exhibit 12 to Martin's Dec, #14 Exhibit Exhibit 13 to Martin's Dec, #15 Declaration Price's Dec ISO Samsung's Opposition, #16 Exhibit Exhibit 2 to Price's Dec, #17 Exhibit Exhibit 5 to Price's Dec, #18 Exhibit Exhibit 6 to Price's Dec, #19 Exhibit Exhibit 8 to Price's Dec, #20 Exhibit Exhibit 11 to Price's Dec, #21 Exhibit Exhibit 13 to Price's Dec, #22 Declaration Sheppard's Dec ISO Samsung's Opposition, #23 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 3/13/2012)

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 JOBY MARTIN IN
SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION
TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE
37(b)(2) SANCTIONS FOR SAMSUNG’S
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF JANUARY
27, 2012 DAMAGES DISCOVERY ORDER



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:

April 3, 2012
10:00 a.m.
Courtroom 5, 4th Floor
Hon. Paul S. Grewal


02198.51855/4647524.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
MARTIN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION
TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(b)(2) SANCTIONS

1

I, Joby Martin, declare as follows:



1.

I am an associate 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 for Rule 37(b)(2) Sanctions For Samsung’s
 Alleged Violation of January 27, 2012 Damages Discovery Order . 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 to such facts under oath.



Samsung’s Production to Date
2.

Samsung has produced over 12,000 pages of financial information in this case

 and the concurrent ITC proceedings between the parties. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a chart
 prepared by our litigation staff that maps out the financial documents produced in this litigation
 and in the parallel ITC proceedings, as well as the dates each document was produced.


3.

On February 3, 2012, Samsung produced

4.

On February 10, 2012, Samsung produced

5.

On February 28, 2012, Samsung produced











which is discussed in the Declaration of Timothy Sheppard starting at paragraph 7,






6.

In response to Apple’s requests for more minute detail concerning
Samsung

on March 8, 2012. This

 spreadsheet is discussed the Sheppard Declaration starting at paragraph 30.
02198.51855/4647524.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
-1MARTIN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION
TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(b)(2) SANCTIONS

1

7.

Prior to February 3, 2012, Samsung produced numerous documents reflecting

2
3

Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and

4 correct copy of an excerpt from one such document,
5
6

8.

Prior to February 3, 2012, Samsung produced

7
8
9
10

Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is

11 a true and correct copy of one such document.
12

9.

Samsung has produced

13
14

Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of one such

15 document,
16

10.

Prior to February 3, 2012,

17
18
19

Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of one such document.
11.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Samsung’s response to

20 Apple’s Interrogatory No. 14,
21
22

12.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a letter from Apple’s counsel to Samsung’s

23 counsel,
24
25

13.

Samsung produced

on March 8, 2012. Attached hereto as

26 Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of one such document.
27

14.

In response to a letter from Apple dated March 5, 2012—a true and correct copy

28 of which is attached as Exhibit 5 to the Declaration of John Gordon—
02198.51855/4647524.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
-2MARTIN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION
TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(b)(2) SANCTIONS

1
2

Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of one such document.

3

15.

Samsung produced the majority of its

4 2012. Samsung produced additional

before February 3,
on March 8, 2012 when it

5 discovered that some were missing from prior productions.
6
7

The Parties’ Meet and Confer Efforts
16.

From November – December 2011, Apple sent several letters regarding its

8 requests for source code technical documents, including requests for quotations, qualification
9 documents, bills of materials, and functional testing results for the accused products’
10 touchscreens. Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of one such letter, sent by
11 Apple’s counsel to Samsung’s counsel on November 28, 2011.
12

17.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a true and correct copy of a letter concerning

13 source code and technical documents sent by Apple’s counsel to Samsung’s counsel and dated
14 December 6, 2011. In this letter, Apple’s counsel states that Apple’s requests for bills of
15 materials, requests for quotations and qualification documents relating to touchscreens are
16 relevant to understanding the structure of the accused devices as they relate to U.S. Patent Nos.
17 7,663,607 and 7,920,129—Apple’s touchscreen patents.
18

18.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 12 is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from

19 Apple’s Sixth Set of Requests for Production (“RFP”). RFP No. 240 seeks “All Documents
20 concerning the design, manufacture, specifications and operation of the touch screens (including
21 the display and touch sensor panels) on the Products at Issue."
22

19.

Attached hereto as Exhibit 13 is a true and correct copy of a letter dated January

23 5, 2012, sent by Apple’s counsel to Samsung’s counsel, stating that Apple requested bills of
24 materials in satisfaction of RFP No. 240.
25

20.

At the January 6, 2012 lead counsel meet and confer, which I attended, the only

26 discussion of bills of materials related to the touchscreens of the accused products, in the context
27 of Apple’s requests for technical documents.
28
02198.51855/4647524.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
-3MARTIN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION
TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(b)(2) SANCTIONS

1

21.

The parties held lead counsel meet and confer sessions on February 6, February

2 14, and February 15 of this year. I attended each meeting.
3
4
5

22.

At the February 14, 2012 lead counsel meet and confer, the discussion of

6 financial documents was brief, and it was clear that the parties had reached an impasse as to the
7 requirements of the Court’s January 27, 2012 Order. Apple did not file its motion until two
8 weeks thereafter.
9

23.

Prior to filing its motion, Apple did not discuss with Samsung a stipulation for a

10 briefing schedule that would have allowed its sanctions motion to be heard much sooner than
11 April 3, 2012. In fact, Apple never even informed Samsung that it would file its motion.
12
13

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

14 foregoing is true and correct.
15

Executed on March 12, 2012, at San Francisco, California.

16
17

/s/ Joby Martin
Joby Martin

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4647524.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
-4MARTIN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION
TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(b)(2) SANCTIONS