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 M

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

February 27, 2012

Writer’s Direct Contact
415.268.6615
[e-mail]

By Email ([e-mail])
Diane Hutnyan
Quinn Emanuel
865 South Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
Re:

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

Dear Diane:
I write in response to your February 23, 2012, letter regarding the deposition of Aaron Von
Minden.
Apple confirms that it has collected all of Mr. Von Minden’s emails and potentially relevant
electronic documents. Apple searched these documents with the search terms provided in its
February 23 Transparency Disclosures. It has produced all responsive documents located
after this diligent and reasonable search.
Your concern that Mr. Von Minden’s custodial collection is “deficient” is unfounded. As we
have extensively explained in our prior correspondence, Aaron Von Minden is irrelevant to
this case. Mr. Von Minden mixes paint for models. He has no role in design. (See, e.g.,
Jason Bartlett’s January 24, 2012, letter to you; Jason Bartlett’s February 2, 2012, letter to
you.) As you yourself acknowledged in your letter, you have had this information for weeks.
In addition, Mr. Von Minden’s irrelevance to this case was specifically discussed in two
separate lead trial counsel meetings. Given Mr. Von Minden’s status as a paint-mixer, most
of his documents are, unsurprisingly, not responsive. Mr. Von Minden did, in fact, start
working at Apple in 2008.
Samsung has now reviewed Mr. Von Minden’s documents, as indicated by your letter
recounting them, including your reference to a photograph of “somebody’s pet Chihuahua.”
It should be readily apparent from Samsung’s review that Mr. Von Minden is irrelevant to
this case. To be clear, Apple has produced Mr. Von Minden’s responsive documents,
including the entire family related to those responsive documents. Thus, Apple’s production
may include documents that were attached to a responsive document, such as a photograph.

sf-3111573

Diane Hutnyan
February 27, 2012
Page Two
(For the record, that photograph of “somebody’s pet Chihuahua” was part of a family of
documents belonging to an Engadget article regarding the iPhone 4.)
We have repeatedly asked Samsung to explain the bases for its belief that the deposition of
Mr. Von Minden would lead to discoverable information. (See, e.g., Jason Bartlett’s
February 2, 2012, letter to you.) Samsung keeps repeating the statement that it “has evidence
that Mr. Von Minden is directly relevant to the design and development of Apple’s iPhone,
iPad, and iPod Touch products.” When Apple has demanded witnesses that Samsung insists
are irrelevant, Apple has provided specific detail about their relationship to the case, with
references to documents produced by Samsung and deposition testimony by Samsung
witnesses. (See, e.g., Mia Mazza’s February 9, 2012, letter to Rachel Kassabian (setting
forth a 13-page witness-by-witness summary outlining why deponents are relevant, including
references to Bates-numbered documents and deposition testimony); Mia Mazza’s February
12, 2012, letter to Rachel Kassabian.) We can only assume that Samsung has repeatedly
failed to reciprocate because such evidence does not exist.
Sincerely,
/s/ Jason R. Bartlett
Jason R. Bartlett
cc:

Peter Kolovos
S. Calvin Walden

sf-3111573