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

Filing 927

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Motion to Exclude Opinions of Certain of Apple's Experts filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Attachments: #1 Samsung's Motion to Exclude Opinions of Certain of Apple's Experts, #2 Declaration Declaration of Joby Martin In Support of Samsung's Motion to Exclude Opinions of Certain of Apple's Experts, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 2, #5 Exhibit 3, #6 Exhibit 4, #7 Exhibit 5, #8 Exhibit 6, #9 Exhibit 7, #10 Exhibit 8, #11 Exhibit 9, #12 Exhibit 10, #13 Exhibit 11, #14 Exhibit 12, #15 Exhibit 13, #16 Exhibit 14, #17 Exhibit 15, #18 Exhibit 16, #19 Exhibit 17, #20 Exhibit 18, #21 Exhibit 19, #22 Exhibit 20, #23 Exhibit 21, #24 Exhibit 22, #25 Exhibit 23, #26 Exhibit 24, #27 Exhibit 25, #28 Exhibit 26, #29 Exhibit 27, #30 Exhibit 28, #31 Exhibit 29, #32 Exhibit 30, #33 Exhibit 31, #34 Exhibit 32, #35 Exhibit 33, #36 Exhibit 34, #37 Proposed Order Granting Samsung's Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 5/17/2012)

EXHIBIT 29

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 24, 2012
Writer’s Direct Contact
415.268.6024
[e-mail]

By Email ([e-mail])
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 responds to your letter dated April 20, 2012, regarding the deposition of Dr. Sanjay
Sood. Apple timely served Dr. Sood’s expert report on March 22, 2012, and his deposition
was taken on April 20, 2012. Although it had Dr. Sood’s report for approximately a month
before the deposition, at no time did Samsung request any additional information regarding
Dr. Sood’s report or the academic papers cited therein. At the deposition, Samsung
requested, for the first time, questionnaires related to two academic papers. Samsung now
posits that Apple has a “choice” either to produce the additional information and present
Dr. Sood for a second deposition or Samsung may move to exclude aspects of Dr. Sood’s
report that Samsung contends are based on the newly requested documents. Samsung’s
position is meritless.
There is no entitlement to every document underlying every study cited in an expert report.
Further, Samsung’s request is untimely. Samsung had the opportunity to request additional
documents about which it intended to question Dr. Sood, but Samsung failed to do so during
the several-week interval between receipt of his report and the deposition. In any event,
Samsung had the opportunity to thoroughly examine Dr. Sood about his report and his
research. The additional information requested by Samsung is cumulative of information
contained in the articles themselves, as Dr. Sood explained during his deposition. The
articles present information sufficient for reviewers to assess the papers and for other
academics to consider and analyze them. It is implausible that Samsung’s needs are even
more extensive than academics who actually work in this field.

sf-3136580

Diane Hutnyan
April 24, 2012
Page Two
Apple will investigate whether additional information is available (as it attempted to do as a
matter of professional courtesy during the deposition). If the information is available, Apple
will produce it. However, Dr. Sood will not be made available for another deposition.
Sincerely,
/s/ Mia Mazza
Mia Mazza
cc:

S. Calvin Walden
Peter Kolovos

sf-3136580