Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
825
OPPOSITION to ( #782 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal re Samsung's Motion Compel Production Materials From Related Proceedings and to Enforce 12/22/11 Court Order ) filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Nathan Sabri Declaration, #2 Exhibit 1, #3 Exhibit 2, #4 Exhibit 3, #5 Exhibit 4, #6 Exhibit 5, #7 Exhibit 6, #8 Exhibit 7, #9 Exhibit 8, #10 Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 3/21/2012) Modified text on 3/22/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
hmcelhinny@mofo.com
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
mjacobs@mofo.com
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
jtaylor@mofo.com
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
atucher@mofo.com
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
rhung@mofo.com
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
jasonbartlett@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
WILLIAM F. LEE
william.lee@wilmerhale.com
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 526-6000
Facsimile: (617) 526-5000
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: (650) 858-6000
Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
10
11
Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.
12
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
SAN JOSE DIVISION
17
APPLE INC.,
18
19
20
21
22
Case No.
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,
11-cv-01846-LHK
DECLARATION OF NATHAN
SABRI IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S
OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
PRODUCTION OF MATERIALS
FROM RELATED PROCEEDINGS
AND TO ENFORCE
DECEMBER 22, 2011 COURT
ORDER
23
Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
SABRI DECL. ISO OPP. TO SAMSUNG’S MTC PRODUCTION OF MATERIALS FROM RELATED PROCEEDINGS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG)
sf-3122400
1
I, NATHAN SABRI, declare as follows:
2
1.
I am an attorney with the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP, counsel for Apple
3
Inc. (“Apple”). I am licensed to practice law in the State of California. I have personal
4
knowledge of the matters stated herein or understand them to be true from members of my
5
litigation team. I make this declaration in support of Apple’s Opposition to Samsung’s Motion to
6
Compel Production of Materials from Related Proceedings and to Enforce December 22, 2011
7
Court Order (“Samsung’s Motion”).
8
2.
On November 3, 2011, Samsung sent a letter to Apple asserting that Samsung was
9
entitled to prior testimony by witnesses employed by Apple in order to assess the credibility of
10
the witnesses in this action. Samsung supported this proposition by citing a case that addressed
11
production of prior deposition transcript from a case with a “technological nexus” to the case at
12
issue. A true and correct copy of this November 3 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1. Minor
13
irrelevant information regarding licenses has been redacted to avoid an unnecessary motion to file
14
under seal.
15
3.
On November 29, 2011, Apple sent a letter to Samsung proposing a definition for
16
“technological nexus” with specific examples for clarity. A true and correct copy of this
17
November 29 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.
18
4.
On December 6, 2011 Apple sent a letter to Samsung summarizing issues
19
discussed at a November 30 meet-and-confer session. A true and correct copy of this December 6
20
letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
21
5.
On February 13, 2012, Samsung provided Apple with a list of proceedings that it
22
asserted had a “technological nexus” with the present lawsuit. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a
23
true and correct copy of the February 13 letter containing this list.
24
6.
On February 29, 2012, Apple responded expressing appreciation that Samsung
25
provided a list of cases but noting that Samsung had not actually made an attempt to limit its
26
cases to those with a technological nexus. For example, Samsung’s list included a case involving
27
one patent covering a vehicle audio system and another case involving image decoding,
28
SABRI DECL. ISO OPP. TO SAMSUNG’S MTC PRODUCTION OF MATERIALS FROM RELATED PROCEEDINGS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG)
sf-3122400
1
processing, and compression patents. Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of
2
this response letter.
3
7.
On March 3, 2012, Samsung provided a revised list of actions that it asserted had a
4
technological nexus with the present lawsuit. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct
5
copy of the March 3 letter containing this list. Samsung’s list included eight cases involving
6
Apple and third parties and the Apple v. Samsung dispute currently pending before the ITC.
7
8.
It is my understanding that Apple does not store deposition transcripts by matter.
8
It stores deposition transcripts by employee. Accordingly, Apple cannot review a particular
9
matter to determine all transcripts associated with that matter; it must proceed employee-by-
10
11
employee and determine what transcripts, if any, it has in its possession for each.
9.
Apple searched for prior deposition transcripts that had not already been produced
12
for Apple employees who are witnesses in the present matter, with the exception of individuals
13
who testified in the present case that they have never been deposed before, from Samsung’s list of
14
eight cases between Apple and third parties.
15
10.
With two exceptions, discussed in more detail below, the only transcripts Apple
16
identified that had not already been produced were from depositions that occurred after January
17
15. Specifically, Apple identified and produced transcripts from the following post-January 15
18
depositions: 1) February 22, 2012 deposition of Brian Huppi in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-
19
797 (APLNDC-Y0000231263); 2) February 28, 2012 deposition of Freddy Anzures in Apple v.
20
Motorola (N.D. Ill.) (APLNDC-Y0000231227); 3) February 27, 2012 deposition of Stan Ng in
21
Apple v. Motorola (N.D. Ill.) (APLNDC-Y0000231356); and 4) January 24, 2012 deposition of
22
Steve Hotelling in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-797 (APL-ITC796-X0000003155).
23
11.
Apple had inadvertently not previously identified or produced a transcript from the
24
November 10, 2010 deposition of Eric Jue in ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-714. Apple
25
promptly produced this transcript after receiving Samsung’s final list of “related proceedings”
26
sent on March 3. (APLNDC-Y0000231187.)
27
28
SABRI DECL. ISO OPP. TO SAMSUNG’S MTC PRODUCTION OF MATERIALS FROM RELATED PROCEEDINGS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG)
sf-3122400
1
12.
Apple has not produced transcripts from prior depositions of Apple 30(b)(6)
2
representative Mark Buckley. Mr. Buckley testifies for Apple solely on financial issues. His
3
testimony therefore has no technological nexus to this lawsuit.
4
5
6
7
8
9
13.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a February 10 letter from Jason Bartlett to Diane
Hutnyan.
14.
Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a February 19 letter from Diane Hutnyan to Jason
Bartlett.
15.
I understand from my team that the parties have agreed to allow documents
produced in the ITC action to be used in the Northern District of California action, and vice versa,
10
and have used documents accordingly. The parties have not agreed to cross-use of deposition
11
transcripts. This is critical to keep the limits on deposition time in the Northern District of
12
California action meaningful. The Northern District of California action has a 250 hour limit on
13
depositions. The ITC Investigation has none—there are no limits on the number of depositions,
14
and no limits on the length of time depositions can run.
15
16
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 21st
day of March, 2012 at San Francisco, California.
17
18
/s/ Nathan Sabri
Nathan Sabri
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SABRI DECL. ISO OPP. TO SAMSUNG’S MTC PRODUCTION OF MATERIALS FROM RELATED PROCEEDINGS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG)
sf-3122400
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 Nathan Sabri has
4
concurred in this filing.
5
Dated: March 21, 2012
/s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Michael A. Jacobs
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SABRI DECL. ISO OPP. TO SAMSUNG’S MTC PRODUCTION OF MATERIALS FROM RELATED PROCEEDINGS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846 LHK (PSG)
sf-3122400
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?