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)

Download PDF
Exhibit 8 425 MARKET STREET SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94105-2482 U.S.A. MO RRI SO N & F O E RST E R L LP TELEPHONE: 415.268.7000 FACSIMILE: 415.268.7522 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 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. WWW.MOFO.COM April 22, 2012 Writer’s Direct Contact 415.268.6024 MMazza@mofo.com By Email (dianehutnyan@quinnemanuel.com) Diane Hutnyan Quinn Emanuel 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017 Re: Apple v. Samsung, Case No. 11-cv-1846-LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal.) Dear Diane: This letter is regarding Apple’s compliance with Part B.2 of the Court’s April 12, 2012, Order. We have provided separate communication regarding Part B.1, and we will provide separate communication regarding Part A. Apple is gathering, processing, and producing on a rolling basis all nonconfidential court documents from the eight cases identified by Samsung in its moving papers, as follows: Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Related Software (Apple v. HTC), ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-797 Apple v. HTC, et al., CA. No. 10-167-GMS (D. Del.) Certain Electronic Devices with Multi-Touch Enabled Touchpad and Touchscreens (Elan Microelectronics Corp. v. Apple), ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-714 Elan Microelectronics Corp. v. Apple, Inc., 09-cv-01531 (N.D. Cal.) Nokia v. Apple, 09-cv-00791 (D. Del.). Certain Mobile Devices And Related Software (Apple v. Motorola), ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-750 Apple Inc. v. Motorola Inc. et al., 10-cv-00661 (W.D. Wis.) Apple Inc. v. Motorola Inc. et al., 11-cv-08540 (D. Ill.) (formerly Apple Inc. v. Motorola Inc. et al., 10-cv-00662 (W.D. Wis.)) sf-3136339 Diane Hutnyan April 22, 2012 Page Two Regarding nonpublic materials containing the Confidential Business Information of parties other than Apple, the problem of third party Confidential Business Information remains a barrier to production despite the April 12 Order. We have reviewed the Protective Orders entered in each of those cases and investigations, and will forward them to you under separate cover. It does not appear that these orders authorize Apple to disclose other parties’ (or nonparties’) Confidential Business Information pursuant to an order issued in another case (or, in the case of ITC proceedings, another court). Rather, even if an order is issued directing the production of a third party’s protected information, the third party must authorize the production. The April 12 Order was based in part upon Samsung’s representation that “it has secured consent from four of the five third-parties whose materials may be disclosed.” As you well know, however, the Confidential Business Information of more than five third parties is included in the nonpublic court documents filed in the above eight cases. Please immediately identify in writing every party (i.e., HTC, Nokia, Motorola, and Elan) and nonparty (e.g., Google) that has provided blanket authorization for Samsung to receive their confidential business information. Please also immediately forward to us those parties’ and nonparties’ written authorization. To facilitate moving forward on producing these nonpublic materials as quickly as possible, we enclose docket sheets for the eight matters at issue. Please identify in writing, no later than 9 a.m. on Tuesday, April 24, each nonpublic item in each case that Samsung wishes to receive under Part B.2 of the April 12 Order. We urge Samsung to exercise discretion and reasonableness in making these identifications. As soon as Apple receives Samsung’s selections, counsel for Apple will review the requested items to determine whether any of them contain the Confidential Business Information of any party or nonparty that has not provided written blanket authorization for Samsung to receive its CBI. Apple will advise Samsung of those parties, and Samsung may then proceed as it wishes toward obtaining their necessary authorization. Sincerely, /s/ Mia Mazza Mia Mazza Encls. cc: S. Calvin Walden Peter Kolovos sf-3136339 Multiple files are bound together in this PDF Package. Adobe recommends using Adobe Reader or Adobe Acrobat version 8 or later to work with documents contained within a PDF Package. By updating to the latest version, you’ll enjoy the following benefits: • Efficient, integrated PDF viewing • Easy printing • Quick searches Don’t have the latest version of Adobe Reader? Click here to download the latest version of Adobe Reader If you already have Adobe Reader 8, click a file in this PDF Package to view it.

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?