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

Filing 911

Statement re #885 MOTION Administrative Relief Apples Administrative Motion For Clarification Of April 12 Order Apples Supplemental Statement Of Additional Facts Regarding Motion For Clarification by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D)(Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 5/9/2012)

Exhibit B

425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO
CALIFORNIA 94105-2482
U.S.A.

MO RRI SO N & F O E RST E R L LP

TELEPHONE: [phone]
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 30, 2012
By Email ([e-mail])

Writer’s Direct Contact
415.268.6024
[e-mail]

Diane Hutnyan
Quinn Emanuel
865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Re:

Apple v. Samsung, Case No. 11-cv-1846-LHK (PSG) (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Diane:
This letter responds to Brad Goldberg’s email sent at 10:30 P.M. on April 27, 2012, which
requested several items of information related to Apple’s Administrative Motion for
Clarification Regarding April 12 Order, filed April 26, 2012 (“Motion”).
Apple has requested that its outside counsel in the eight other matters at issue review their
files and identify all third parties whose consent would need to be obtained in order for all
remaining documents to be released. It is our understanding that all such third parties have
been notified and their consent requested. Authorizations from third parties are coming in on
a rolling basis. As that happens, counsel in the relevant other actions are sending us any
documents that can be produced as a result. Often, multiple other parties’ CBI is implicated.
As you know, we have also requested authorization from the International Trade
Commission to produce all CBI.
Mr. Goldberg asks about the more than twenty entities from whom Apple has requested
consent. Nearly all of the notice letters were attached to Apple’s filing with the International
Trade Commission last week, reflecting notice to Thomas L. Cronan III, Jefferson Han,
Perceptive Pixel, Wi-Fi Alliance, Atmel, AT&T, Cetecom, Google, IBM, Synaptic, Marvell,
Microsoft, New York University, Hewlett-Packard, Qualcomm, TED Conferences, Texas
Instruments, Dominic Tolli, University of Delaware, and Deborah Coutant regarding the
Motorola matters; and Elan regarding the Elan matters. Additional copies are attached.
After Apple filed its papers with the ITC, counsel for Apple identified additional nonparty
entities whose CBI was contained in ITC court documents, and sent additional notice letters,
which are attached hereto. The nonparties noticed in those letters were Cypress
Semiconductors (regarding the HTC ITC matter) and Cirque, Alcatel-Lucent, Synaptics, and
Red Nun (regarding the Elan matters). In addition, counsel for Apple has sent the attached
notice letters regarding the federal district court matters to Google (regarding the HTC
Delaware matter) and Nokia (regarding the Nokia Delaware matter).

sf-3139264

Diane Hutnyan
April 30, 2012
Page Two
We also attach hereto correspondence sent to Winston & Strawn, your co-counsel for
Motorola. As you will see, we have been unable to secure Motorola’s consent to produce
because Motorola has refused to allow Apple’s counsel of record in this case, WilmerHale, to
have access to its confidential information.
Mr. Goldberg’s email also references a statement in Apple’s Motion that a third party has
given consent for the production of materials related to a single hearing. This was a
reference to Atmel, which gave this consent to Samsung on December 21, 2011, in email
correspondence to you in connection with Samsung’s request for Markman-related
information. We have since learned that counsel for Apple in the Motorola matters just
recently received broader authorization from Atmel, as attached hereto, but we are informed
that this broader authorization does not allow Apple to produce any additional documents, as
the documents to which it relates also have the confidential information of other parties who
have not provided consent.
The responses Apple has received to its counsel’s notice letters are attached.
We do not have an index of all the documents still affected by these CBI issues in these
cases. We cannot prepare one because we are not privileged to see the documents until
consent to produce is obtained.
Finally, on a different aspect of the April 12 Order, we renew our request that you identify
immediately any Apple witness you request to depose as a result of Apple’s production of
deposition transcripts from related cases. We note that it is now ten days before Samsung’s
May 10 deadline for completing any such depositions and we still have not received a single
name from you. Apple informed you ten days ago that it had completed its production of
deposition transcripts under the April 12 Order, and stated that we would need to receive the
names of any deponents by April 25 in order to have time to fit depositions into the
employees’ schedules. Your delay in identifying deponents—if you intend to seek additional
depositions—risks making depositions before May 10 impossible, and Apple does not intend
to make any employees available after that date.
Sincerely,
/s/ Mia Mazza
Mia Mazza
Encls.
cc:

S. Calvin Walden
Peter Kolovos

sf-3139264

Page 1 of 2

Mazza, Mia
From:

Mazza, Mia

Sent:

Monday, April 30, 2012 3:07 PM

To:

'Retsky, Jonathan E.'

Cc:

Tucher, Alison M.; [e-mail]

Subject:

RE: Apple v. Samsung: Apple's Request for Authorization to Produce Motorola CBI

Attachments: 740618-478364.pdf

Jonathan,
Thanks for your email. WilmerHale has signed on to at least to the Protective Order in the 745
action. Please see attached. We are informed by Weil that much of the CBI at issue was
produced pursuant to the protective order in the 745 action, and subject to cross use in the 750
and district court cases. We understand that WilmerHale may also have appeared at one or more
depositions in the Moto Illinois matter.
Regards,
Mia Mazza
Morrison & Foerster LLP
San Francisco
[phone] office
[phone] mobile
[phone] fax

From: Retsky, Jonathan E. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2012 6:34 AM
To: Mazza, Mia
Cc: Tucher, Alison M.; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung: Apple's Request for Authorization to Produce Motorola CBI

Mia:
My client cannot find where Wilmer Hale has filed any appearances in the 750 action.
Can you explain what you mean by “have already signed on to the Protective Order in
the Apple v. Motorola ITC matter” as you state in your letter?
Thanks.
Jonathan E. Retsky
Partner
D: [phone]
F: [phone]
www.winston.com

From: Mazza, Mia [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 7:02 PM
To: Retsky, Jonathan E.
Cc: Tucher, Alison M.; [e-mail]

4/30/2012

Page 2 of 2

Subject: Apple v. Samsung: Apple's Request for Authorization to Produce Motorola CBI

<<2012-04-27 Ltr Mazza to Retsky re Motorola.pdf>>
Hi Jonathan,
I took Motorola’s proposal back to my client, but we couldn't find a way to make it work.
Attached please find correspondence reviewing the matter. I hope you have a good weekend.
Regards,
Mia Mazza
Morrison & Foerster LLP
San Francisco
[phone] office
[phone] mobile
[phone] fax

--------------------------------------------------------------------To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, Morrison & Foerster LLP informs you that,
if any advice concerning one or more U.S. Federal tax issues is contained in this communication (including
any attachments), such advice is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of
(i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to
another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
For information about this legend, go to
http://www.mofo.com/Circular230/
============================================================================
This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee
(or authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or
any information contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the
sender by reply e-mail @mofo.com, and delete the message.
--------------------------------------------------------------------The contents of this message may be privileged and confidential. Therefore, if this message has been
received in error, please delete it without reading it. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive
any applicable privilege. Please do not disseminate this message without the permission of the author.
****************************************************************************** Any tax
advice contained in this email was not intended to be used, and cannot be used, by you (or any other
taxpayer) to avoid penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

4/30/2012

In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communication
Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices,
Computers and Components Thereof

Inv. No.: 337-TA-745

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Ann Taylor, hereby certify that on April 20, 2012, copies of the foregoing Protective
Order Subscription of Joseph Mueller was delivered, pursuant to Commission regulations, to
the following interested parties as indicated:
The Honorable James R. Holbein
Secretary to the Commission
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E. Street, SW
Washington, DC 20436

Via EDIS

The Honorable Thomas B. Pender
Office of the Administrative Law Judge
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW, Room 317
Washington, DC 20436

Via E-mail

Kevin Baer, Esq.
Office of Unfair Imports Investigations
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20436
[phone]

Via E-mail

Charles F. Schill
Jamie B. Beaber
STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036

Via E-mail

[e-mail]

[e-mail]

S&[e-mail]

Counsel for Complainants Motorola, Inc. and
Motorola Mobility, Inc.

Certificate of Service Page 1 of 3

In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communication
Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices,
Computers and Components Thereof

Charles K. Verhoeven
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111

Inv. No.: 337-TA-745

Via E-mail
[e-mail]

David A. Nelson
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
500 West Madison Street, Ste. 2450
Chicago, IL 60661
Edward J. DeFranco
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
New York, NY 10010
Counsel for Complainants Motorola, Inc. and
Motorola Mobility, Inc.
Mark G. Davis
Robert T. Vlasis
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
1300 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 900
Washington, DC 20005

Via E-mail
[e-mail]

Kevin Judlac
Calvin Y. Cheng
Justin L. Constant
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
700 Louisiana, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77002
Carmen E. Bremer
Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP
200 Crescent Court, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75201
Lead Counsel for Respondent Apple Inc.

Certificate of Service Page 2 of 3

In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communication
Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices,
Computers and Components Thereof

Matthew D. Powers
Steven S. Cherensky
Robert L. Gerrity
Paul T. Ehrlich
Stefani C. Smith
Tensegrity Law Group LLP
201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 401
Redwood Shores, CA 94065

Inv. No.: 337-TA-745

Via E-mail
[e-mail]

Counsel for Respondent Apple Inc.
Robert T. Haslam
Anupam Sharma
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700
Redwood Shores, California 94065-1418
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

Via E-mail
[e-mail]

Robert D. Fram
Christine Saunders Haskett
Samuel F. Ernst
Chris Martiniak
Winslow B. Taub
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
One Front Street
San Francisco, California 94111-5356
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Counsel for Complainant Apple Inc.

______________________
Ann Taylor
Senior Paralegal
COVINGTON AND BURLING LLP
[phone]

Certificate of Service Page 3 of 3