Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Kang ISO Motion to Seal DECLARATION UNDER SEAL, #2 Exhibit 1 to Kang: Redacted Samsung's Reply ISO Motion for Protective Order, #3 Exhibit 2 to Kang: Declaration of Kang ISO Samsung's Reply ISO Motion for Protective Order, #4 Declaration of Kassabian ISO Samsung's Reply ISO Motion for Protective Order, #5 Exhibit A to Kassabian, #6 Exhibit B to Kassabian, #7 Exhibit C to Kassabian, #8 Exhibit D to Kassabian, #9 Exhibit E to Kassabian, #10 Exhibit F to Kassabian, #11 Exhibit G to Kassabian, #12 Exhibit H to Kassabian, #13 Exhibit I to Kassabian, #14 Exhibit J to Kassabian, #15 Exhibit K to Kassabian, #16 Exhibit L to Kassabian, #17 Exhibit M to Kassabian, #18 Exhibit N to Kassabian, #19 Exhibit O to Kassabian, #20 Exhibit P to Kassabian, #21 Exhibit Q to Kassabian, #22 Exhibit R to Kassabian, #23 Exhibit S to Kassabian, #24 Exhibit T to Kassabian, #25 Exhibit U to Kassabian, #26 Proposed Order Granting Motio to Seal, #27 Proposed Order Granting's Samsung's Motion for Protective Order Precluding the Depositions of Six High Ranking Executives)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 3/20/2012) Modified on 3/21/2012 Sealing Declaration of Kang (dhm, COURT STAFF).
425 MARKET STREET
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
February 23, 2012
Writer’s Direct Contact
By Email (firstname.lastname@example.org)
865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Apple v. Samsung, Case No. 11-cv-1846-LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal.)
Samsung has already deposed more than 60 Apple witnesses on Apple’s offensive side of
this case, and the parties have already confirmed scheduling of depositions for at least 17
additional Apple witnesses. Even if no additional depositions are taken by Samsung in this
case, by the end of the fact discovery period Samsung will have deposed a total of 77 Apple
witnesses in Apple’s offensive case alone.
Samsung has noticed the depositions of the following additional individuals in Apple’s
offensive case, none of whom possesses sufficiently direct knowledge of discoverable facts
relevant to this case to justify Samsung’s taking their depositions:
Aaron von Minden
Rebecca Van Dyck
Apple does not understand what factual basis could underlie any argument by Samsung that
these additional witnesses have sufficient direct knowledge to outweigh the burden of
making them available for deposition. On top of that, some of these individuals would
February 23, 2012
qualify as “apex” witnesses, making Samsung’s burden even more difficult to overcome.
Others of these individuals are attorneys, and the taking of their depositions is disfavored.
On February 3, 2012, Samsung sent Apple a list of witnesses whose depositions Samsung
questioned along similar lines. As a result of the mutual agreement that the parties reached
at the February 6, 2012 lead counsel meet-and-confer session, we sent you letters on both
February 9th and February 12th setting out in great detail — with references to documents
produced by Samsung and deposition testimony of Samsung witnesses — the bases for
Apple’s belief that those witnesses had directly relevant knowledge justifying their
At the February 6, 2012, lead counsel meeting, Samsung agreed to provide the same type of
letter with respect to certain Apple witnesses whose depositions had been noticed by that
point, including Eddy Cue and others in the above list. Samsung never provided Apple with
that letter. We now ask that Samsung provide the promised letter for all of the above
witnesses, many of whom were not noticed for deposition until well after the February 6th
meet and confer.
Please provide Samsung’s factual basis in writing, in at least the level of detail provided by
Apple in its letters, citing to documents and deposition testimony, if any, for its belief that
any of these witnesses possess information directly relevant to this case sufficient to justify
their depositions. Such a letter would help Apple to better understand Samsung’s position,
and to assess which witnesses should be scheduled and which should be the subject of a
motion for protective order.
/s/ Jason R. Bartlett
Jason R. Bartlett
S. Calvin Walden
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?