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

Filing 807

DECLARATION of Mia Mazza in Support of #805 Opposition to Administrative Motion for Temporary Relief from the Lead Counsel Meet and Confer Requirement or Alternatively for an Extension of the Deadline to File Motions to Compel, filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit J, #11 Exhibit K, #12 Exhibit L, #13 Exhibit M, #14 Exhibit N)(Related document(s) #805 ) (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 3/13/2012) Modified text on 3/14/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

Exhibit L

425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO
CALIFORNIA 94105-2482
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FACSIMILE: 415.268.7522

MO RRI SO N & F O E RST E R L LP
N E W YO RK , SAN F RAN C I SCO ,
L O S A N G E L E S, P A L O A L T O ,
SAC RAME N T O , SAN D I E G O ,
D E N VE R, N O RT H E RN VI RG I N I A,
WASH I N G T O N , D .C.
T O K YO , L O N D O N , BR U SSE L S,
BE I JI N G , SH AN G H AI , H O N G K O N G

WWW.MOFO.COM

Writer’s Direct Contact
415.268.6615
[e-mail]

March 12, 2012

By Email ([e-mail])
Diane Hutnyan
Quinn Emanuel
865 South Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Re:

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

Dear Diane:
I write regarding the excessive volume of last minute third-party subpoenas issued by
Samsung. Discovery in this litigation has been proceeding for months, and Samsung has had
ample opportunity to notice and serve these subpoenas well in advance of the close of
discovery. Samsung’s recent slew of subpoenas is not justified by any recently discovered
facts. Instead, Samsung simply waited until the final days of discovery to issue or amend at
least 51 subpoenas, 35 of which purport to seek live testimony. In fact, Samsung has issued
or amended 29 subpoenas in the past two weeks alone. The chart below details Samsung’s
last-minute attempt to upset the discovery schedule and sandbag Apple with a flurry of
depositions across the country:
Noticed
2/10/2012

sf-3113852

Subpoenas issued to
1. Tatung Company of America [documents and testimony]
2. Dell, Inc. [documents and testimony]
3. Sharp Electronics Corp. [documents and testimony]
4. RIM [documents and testimony]
5. Nokia Corp.[documents and testimony]
6. Mitac USA [documents and testimony]
7. LG [documents and testimony]
8. iRiver [documents and testimony]
9. HP [documents and testimony]
10. AT&T [documents and testimony]
11. Bluebird Soft Inc. [documents and testimony]
12. Casio America [documents and testimony]

Diane Hutnyan
March 12, 2012
Page Two

2/13/2012

13. Barnes & Noble [documents and testimony]
14. Sony [documents and testimony]
15. Sony Ericsson [documents and testimony]
16. Motorola Mobility [documents and testimony]
17. HTC America Innovation [documents and testimony]
18. Target [documents and testimony]
19. TBWA [documents and testimony]

2/15/2012

20. OMD [documents and testimony]

2/16/2012

2/23/2012

21. Simon Prakash [testimony]
22. David Tupman [testimony]
23. Frost [documents]
24. Gartner [documents]
25. Gravitytank [documents]
26. IDC [documents]
27. Kantar [documents]
28. Strategy Analytics [documents]
29. Student Monitor [documents]
30. TNS [documents]
31. Why-Q [documents]
32. Richard Ivester [testimony]

2/24/2012

33. Pantech [documents and testimony]

2/25/2012

34. Steve Beyer [testimony]

2/26/2012

2/27/2012

35. Electronic Arts [documents and testimony]
36. Fancy Models [documents and testimony]
37. Fujitsu Group [documents and testimony]
38. Larson & Taylor [documents and testimony]
39. Microsoft [documents and testimony]

2/28/2012

40. Costco (amended)

2/29/2012

41. Sony Ericsson (amended)
42. Olympus (amended)
43. RadioShack (amended)
44. Robert Brunner (amended)
45. Sharp [documents and testimony]
46. Palm (amended)

2/12/2012

2/22/2012

3/1/2012

sf-3113852

Diane Hutnyan
March 12, 2012
Page Three

3/6/2012

47. Richard Ivester (amended)
48. Edward Tse [testimony]
49. Adam Bogue [testimony]
50. Clifton Forlines [testimony]

In fact, on the very day of the close of discovery, Samsung served notice of another
subpoena which purports in the cover letter and attachments to seek both testimony and
production of documents. The subpoena is of Whirlpool Corporation. The topics appear to
relate to the Velos product, which Samsung has admitted it knew of at least as early as
October 2011. (See January 18, 2012 Letter from Briggs to Mazza). Samsung’s delay to the
last day of discovery in issuing a subpoena to an entity whose alleged relevance Samsung
knew of five months ago is inexcusable.
Please explain why Samsung has waited until just before the discovery deadline to serve the
parties listed above or reschedule their depositions to the final days of discovery.
We also ask for Samsung’s confirmation that it now withdraws all subpoenas for which there
has been no response, or that have not been delayed for good cause.
Sincerely,
/s/ Jason R. Bartlett
Jason R. Bartlett
cc:

Peter Kolovos
S. Calvin Walden

sf-3113852