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

Filing 814

Declaration of Mia Mazza in Support of #813 Reply to Opposition/Response filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2)(Related document(s) #813 ) (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 3/15/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

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]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN JOSE DIVISION

15

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

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.

12

16

WILLIAM F. LEE
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
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,
Defendants.

Case No.

11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

REPLY DECLARATION OF
MIA MAZZA IN SUPPORT OF
APPLE’S MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND
COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH
MOTION TO COMPEL
DEPOSITIONS OF 14 OF
SAMSUNG’S PURPORTED
“APEX” WITNESSES
Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:

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

25
26
27
28
MAZZA REPLY DECL. ISO APPLE’S MOTION FOR FEES & COSTS RE MOTION TO COMPEL “APEX” DEPOSITIONS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3120232

1

I, Mia Mazza, declare as follows:

2

1.

I am a partner in the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel for Apple Inc.

3

(“Apple”). I am licensed to practice law in the State of California. Unless otherwise indicated, I

4

have personal knowledge of the matters stated herein or understand them to be true from

5

members of my litigation team. I make this Declaration in support of Apple’s Reply In Support

6

of Its Motion For Attorneys’ Fees And Costs In Connection With Motion To Compel Depositions

7

of 14 of Samsung’s Purported “Apex” Witnesses (“Fees Reply”).

8
9

2.

Apple has produced three of its nine most senior executives—Scott Forstall,

Jonathan Ive, and Phil Schiller—for deposition in this case. Messrs. Forstall, Ive, and Schiller are,

10

respectively, the most senior individuals in the iOS Software, Industrial Design, and Marketing

11

groups. Each of these witnesses’ depositions have already taken place. As noted in my

12

Declaration in Support of Apple’s Motion to Compel Depositions of 14 of Samsung’s Purported

13

“Apex” Witnesses (Dkt. No. 736-3 ¶¶12-13), Apple has produced at least 3 other witnesses for

14

deposition who are as high-ranking as most of Samsung’s purported “apex” witnesses.

15

3.

Samsung has sought to depose certain Apple employees without providing Apple

16

with information showing that these proposed deponents have sufficient knowledge of relevant

17

facts to justify their depositions. Instead, it has sent Apple only one short letter, dated

18

February 28, 2012, that fails to reference any documents or deposition transcripts tying these

19

proposed deponents to relevant issues in the case. Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and

20

correct copy of that February 28th letter.

21

4.

On February 9, 2012, Apple sent Samsung a 9-page letter detailing, with

22

references to documents produced from the files of other witnesses and to deposition transcripts,

23

the reasons why each of Samsung’s 20 “apex” witnesses possesses unique, relevant information

24

that cannot be obtained through other means. The very next day, on February 10th, Samsung

25

served deposition notices on Apple’s CEO Tim Cook, General Counsel Bruce Sewell, and Senior

26

Director of IP Law and Litigation Noreen Krall. Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 are true and

27

correct copies of Samsung’s deposition notices for these witnesses. There is no apparent basis for

28

these depositions. For example, Tim Cook, Apple’s recently-appointed CEO, has had no direct,
MAZZA REPLY DECL. ISO APPLE’S MOTION FOR FEES & COSTS RE MOTION TO COMPEL “APEX” DEPOSITIONS
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3120232

1

1

relevant role in the design, development, or marketing of any of the products or features at issue

2

in this case. Samsung has never explained why it needs to depose Mr. Cook or, for that matter,

3

why it waited until February 10 to notice Mr. Cook’s deposition.

4
5
6
7

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
March 15, 2012 at San Francisco, California.
/s/ Mia Mazza
Mia Mazza

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MAZZA REPLY DECL. ISO APPLE’S MOTION FOR FEES & COSTS RE MOTION TO COMPEL “APEX” DEPOSITIONS
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3120232

2

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 Mia Mazza has

4

concurred in this filing.

5

Dated: March 15, 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
MAZZA REPLY DECL. ISO APPLE’S MOTION FOR FEES & COSTS RE MOTION TO COMPEL “APEX” DEPOSITIONS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3120232

3