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

Filing 887

Declaration of Mia Mazza In Support Of Apples Administrative Motion For Clarification Regarding April 12 Order filed byApple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Exhibit 2, #3 Exhibit 3, #4 Exhibit 4, #5 Exhibit 5, #6 Exhibit 6, #7 Exhibit 7, #8 Exhibit 8, #9 Exhibit 9, #10 Exhibit 10, #11 Exhibit 11, #12 Exhibit 12, #13 Exhibit 13, #14 Exhibit 14, #15 Exhibit 15, #16 Exhibit 16, #17 Exhibit 17, #18 Exhibit 18, #19 Exhibit 19, #20 Exhibit 20, #21 Exhibit 21, #22 Exhibit 22, #23 Exhibit 23, #24 Exhibit 24)(Tucher, Alison) (Filed on 4/26/2012)

Exhibit 23

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]

April 24, 2012
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Mia Mazza, Esq.
Morrison & Foerster LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
Re:

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

Dear Mia,
I write in response to your April 24 letter regarding Apple's supposed compliance with part B.1.
of the April 12 order.
Apple suggests that it has already fully complied with part B.1 of the April 12 order, but many
items have obviously been excluded. First, nothing in the Court's Order permits Apple to
exclude deposition transcripts from related proceedings dated after the discovery cutoff in this
action, or a given witness's deposition in this action. In direct contrast to Apple's position – and
explicitly rejecting the previous limitations Apple had unilaterally added to the terms of the
December 22 order – the Court ordered Apple to produce "all deposition transcripts of Apple
employees, testifying in their employee capacity, from actions bearing a technological nexus to
this case." Dkt. 867 at 10 (emphasis added). Second, the list in your letter appears to be missing
many other responsive transcripts. For example, Investigation of Certain Mobile Devices And
Related Software (Apple v. Motorola), 337-TA-750 (ITC) (the "750 Investigation") bears a
technological nexus to this action because it involves the ‘828 and ‘607 patents, but Apple's
production from that Investigation does not include deposition transcripts from a single named
inventor of the ‘828 and ‘607 patents. Though it is not Samsung's responsibility to identify the
responsive materials from these related proceedings, Apple's production of relevant materials
from these proceedings must, at a minimum, include all deposition transcripts from the named
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 | Erzbergerstraße 5, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MOSCOW | Voentorg Building, 3rd Floor, 10 Vozdvizhenka Street, Moscow 125009, Russia | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]

538-8100

inventors of the patents in common and any related patents. Third, Apple's list fails to include
any deposition transcripts from the 796 Investigation. Apple's compliance with section B.1.
cannot be complete until those materials have been produced in full. Please ensure that all Apple
employee transcripts from that case are produced by April 27.
Also, Samsung rejects Apple's demand that Samsung identify the individuals it wishes to depose
pursuant to the April 12 Court Order by tomorrow. Nothing in the Court's order requires
Samsung to identify these witnesses by that date. In fact, the Order implicitly assumes
Samsung's identifications may come later than this, as Apple's deadline for production is April
27. And, as discussed above, Apple's production of employee deposition transcripts remains
woefully incomplete. Samsung expects Apple to comply fully by the Court's April 27 deadline,
and it will then inform Apple, when appropriate, of the individuals it wishes to depose.
Your letter also attempts to limit the individuals that Samsung may depose to the Apple
employees whose transcripts are now belatedly being produced. This is improper; there is no
such limitation in the Court's order.
Again, Apple needs to stop demanding things of Samsung and put its energies into complying, in
full, with the Court's order. Apple and its counsel should be fully capable of complying with the
Court's directive in good faith without further discussion. Samsung reserves its right to move for
sanctions or other relief in the event that Apple's production is deficient.
Kind regards,
/s/ Diane C. Hutnyan
Diane C. Hutnyan

2

From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Mazza, Mia
Tuesday, April 24, 2012 11:38 PM
Diane Hutnyan
AppleMoFo; WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service; Samsung v. Apple
RE: Apple v. Samsung Co., Case No. 11-cv-1846 LHK (N.D. Cal.): Correspondence re
April 12 Court Order

Diane:
I wanted to get right back to you to clear up what appear to be a few misunderstandings on Samsung's part.
First, the list attached to my letter to you of earlier today is a subset of the deposition transcripts produced by
Apple pursuant to the April 12 Order. Your team is directed to Apple's productions of April 17 and 20, 2012 at
APLNDC003107336-3122498 and APLNDC-Y0000239399-251389.
Second, in producing deposition transcripts pursuant to the April 12 Order Apple did not re-produce
duplicate copies of deposition transcripts Apple had already produced during the discovery period. For
example, Apple has not re-produced the Motorola ITC 750 deposition transcripts of John Elias
(APLNDC0001251403), Martin Grunthaner (APLNDC0001251230), Steven Hotelling
(APLNDC0001251506), Brian Huppi (APLNDC0001251998), Eric Jue (APLNDC0001246240), Chris Krah
(APLNDC0001248909), Chip Lutton (APLNDC0001249107), Josh Strickon (APLNDC0001244550), Boris
Teksler (APLNDC0001220501), or Wayne Westerman (APLNDC0001251285).
Third, the parties agreed on April 15, pursuant to your suggestion, that "796 deposition transcripts are
immediately deemed produced in this action." (Email from D. Hutnyan to M. Mazza dtd April 13, 2012, 3:36
p.m.) Therefore, Apple completed its production of ITC 796 deposition transcripts on that date.
There is nothing deficient about Apple's production of deposition transcripts last week pursuant to the April 12
Order. Please do not delay in advising us of any additional Apple employee depositions that Samsung requests
to be taken under the April 12 Order. We continue to request that you provide us with any and all names
tomorrow.
Regards,
Mia Mazza
Morrison & Foerster LLP
San Francisco
[phone] office
[phone] mobile
[phone] fax

1

From: Brad Goldberg [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2012 10:57 PM
To: Mazza, Mia
Cc: AppleMoFo; 'WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service'; Samsung v. Apple; Diane Hutnyan
Subject: Apple v. Samsung Co., Case No. 11-cv-1846 LHK (N.D. Cal.): Correspondence re April 12 Court Order

Mia,
Please see the attached correspondence from Diane Hutnyan.
Regards,
Brad Goldberg
Associate
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
213-443-3248 Direct
213-443-3000 Main Office Number
213-443-3100 Fax
[e-mail]
www.quinnemanuel.com
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. This message
may be an attorney-client communication and/or work product and as such is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this document in error and that any
review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.

2