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)

Exhibit 1

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]

February 28, 2012
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Jason Bartlett
Morrison & Foerster, LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105
Re:

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Jason:
This letter is regarding Apple’s continued refusal to schedule witnesses who have relevant
information regarding the products and features at issue in this case. Your assertion in your
February 27 letter that “Samsung has repeatedly failed to [provide a detailed outline regarding
each witness’ relevance] because such evidence does not exist” is a red herring.
First, as we explained in our February 24 letter, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not
require that Samsung provide any such outline, which in effect would be a road map to every
deposition it takes. It is not Samsung’s responsibility to help Apple’s counsel prepare for these
depositions. And it is not appropriate for Apple to condition these depositions on Samsung's
provision of such information.
Second, Apple's utter failure to produce documents relevant to its witnesses—until right before
the deposition, somewhat after the deposition, or not at all—obviously limits the pre-deposition
showing we can make now with regard to what the witness knows, and so any Apple
determination to obstruct that deposition based on the supposed lack of detail in our predeposition showing is all the more improper.
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
LONDON | 16

Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 825, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2400 | TEL [phone]

FAX (202)

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 | Mollstraße 42, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MOSCOW | Voentorg Building, 3rd Floor, 10 Vozdvizhenka Street, Moscow 125009, Russia | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]

538-8100

Third, Samsung already provided relevance information regarding ten of the witnesses you have
objected to in my February 3 letter. A party may depose any witness that possesses relevant,
nonprivileged information.
Notwithstanding the fact that Apple’s demands are unsupported by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, in an effort to compromise and avoid unnecessary motion practice, we have listed the
relevance of each witness at issue below.

Jeff Williams
As the current head of operations and has someone who has worked with Apple’s operations
team since the late 1990s, Jeff Williams has unique, personal information regarding the products
at issue, and specifically the iPhone. Mr. Williams has been called the “head of operations for
the iPhone” and was personally involved in solving several obstacles during the development
process. Mr. Williams also has relevant knowledge regarding the patents in suit and Samsung’s
alleged infringement.
Bruce Sewell
In his role, Bruce Sewell participated in several negotiation sessions and in pre-litigation
meetings with Samsung regarding licensing issues. As Apple highlighted in its February 9 letter
regarding Samsung’s apex witnesses, and specifically Dr. Seungho Ahn, Mr. Sewell’s
counterpart in the aforementioned negotiations, Mr. Sewell’s involvement in licensing
negotiations is plainly relevant, especially given that Apple identified him as a person with
discoverable information in its initial disclosures.
Noreen Krall
Like Mr. Sewell, Ms. Krall has unique information regarding licensing issues. Specifically, she
is in charge of a department that deals with such issues and has been personally involved in
negotiating licenses with third parties.
Chris Birgers and Michael Solomon
Deposition testimony demonstrates that both Messrs. Birgers and Solomon have personal
knowledge regarding the design and development of Apple’s packaging. Given Apple’s asserted
trade dress claim involving its packaging, this information is clearly relevant.
Deborah Goldsmith
Ms. Goldsmith has personally worked on the World Clock application that is at issue in this case.
This is highly relevant to Samsung’s patent claims.

02198.51855/4626097.1

2

Fred Simon
Fred Simon is a CAD sculptor who has worked on designing the products at issue in this case.
Many drawings that Apple has produced in this action, including documents cited to establish the
priority date of the D’889 patent and Exhibits 7-9 of the Stringer Declaration in support of
Apple’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction are sourced to Mr. Simon. Clearly he has relevant
knowledge regarding the design and development of the products at issue.
Chris Hood
Like Mr. Simon, Mr. Hood is a CAD sculptor who worked on the products at issue. Several
documents Apple has produced demonstrate that Mr. Hood is the custodian of CAD drawings of
the products at issue.
David Falkenburg
Deposition testimony demonstrates that Mr. Falkenburg was personally involved in
programming the features at issue in this case, including the Control Strip feature.
Eugene Kim
Mr. Kim is an electrical engineer who was personally involved with the development of the Q79
prototype and has knowledge regarding the products at issue.
John Geleynse
Mr. Geleynse has personally worked on the iOS and with developers of third party applications.
He has been described as the “go-to” person who has unique knowledge about if and when
information about the features at issue were distributed outside Apple.
Tim Cook
Tim Cook was the head of Operations when the products at issue were developed. The role of
the operations team at Apple is critical—it’s responsible for exploring manufacturing methods
and materials for products, conducting performance testing on products, and working with the
Industrial Design Group to create samples. Multiple witnesses have stated that Mr. Cook
attended meetings where the statuses of various development projects were discussed and had a
“significant role” in developing the manufacturing processes for the first iPhone. In addition,
Mr. Cook was personally involved with the development of products at issue, discussing Apple’s
intellectual property with Samsung, and has unique knowledge regarding the distribution of the
products at issue and Apple’s supply chain.
Steven Sinclair
Steven Sinclair is responsible for tracking the market share of competitors, and specifically the
iPhone. Moreover, Mr. Sinclair has personal knowledge regarding the veracity of different
iPhone marketing claims and whether certain iPhone features predated competitors.

02198.51855/4626097.1

3

Michael Lewis
Michael Lewis coordinates the marketing communications team and, like Steven Sinclair, was
personally involved in creating claims used in Apple’s marketing campaigns and has knowledge
regarding the novelty of Apple products. Mr. Lewis’ deposition is especially important given
that the witnesses deposed to date have not been able to interpret the meaning of critical
documents he authored that bear directly on the validity of the patents in suit.
John Brown
Mr. Brown is a member of Apple’s market research and analysis team and was personally
responsible for conducting competitive market research and sharing that information within
Apple. In addition, he was involved in discussions about features of Apple’s patents in suit.
Aaron von Minden, Amy Chuang, and Zack Kamen
Messrs. von Minden and Kamen and Ms. Chuang are employees of Industrial Design’s Model
Shop. Deposition testimony demonstrates that the Model Shop machines, finishes, paints and
assembles the models that represent Industrial Design’s designs. Those who worked in the
model shop when the products at issue were developed would have critical information regarding
the dates these products were created and the different shapes they took over time, both of which
go to the validity of the asserted design patents. Individuals in the Model Shop personally
worked with designers during the creation process. Moreover, beyond their “painting” duties,
Model Shop employees worked with materials and finishes, like the oleo-phobic surface of the
devices at issue.
Jeff Robbin
Not only is Jeff Robbin in charge of the iTunes application, which is related to the trademarks
and trade dress Apple asserts, he was personally involved in comparing the products at issue to
the prior art during their development.
Eddie Cue
Like Jeff Robbin, Eddie Cue was personally involved in comparing Apple’s technology to the
prior art during the development phase. Moreover, Mr. Cue was personally involved in the
development of iTunes, which is related to the trademarks and trade dress at issue.
As detailed above, all of these witnesses clearly possess relevant nonprivileged evidence and
Samsung is entitled to their depositions. Apple’s failure to schedule these depositions—as the
parties have agreed to do in this case notwithstanding objections—is highly prejudicial to
Samsung’s trial preparations and any further delay by Apple in scheduling no fewer than twenty
depositions threatens the trial schedule. Accordingly, unless Apple responds by the end of the
day today dropping its objections and confirming dates for the depositions of the witnesses listed
above, this issue will be placed on the agenda for the next lead-counsel meet and confer.

02198.51855/4626097.1

4

Kind regards,

Diane C. Hutnyan
02198.51855/4626097.1

02198.51855/4626097.1

5