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

Filing 965

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Motion to Enforce April 12, 2012 Order 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 Enforce April 12, 2012 Order (Public Redacted Version), #2 Declaration of Diane C. Hutnyan In Support of Samsung's Motion to Enforce April 12, 2012 Order, #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 Proposed Order Granting Samsung's Motion to Enforce April 12, 2012 Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 5/22/2012)

EXHIBIT 6

From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:

Diane Hutnyan
Bartlett, Jason R.; Mazza, Mia
AppleMoFo; WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service; Samsung v. Apple
RE: Apple v. Samsung Discovery Correspondence
Wednesday, May 09, 2012 2:39:50 PM

Jason,

We do not need to do this.  The Court’s Order of April 12 did not carve out any exceptions for witnesses that
Samsung did not depose before, or that Apple feels Samsung did not depose enough, or deposed too much,
and Apple’s filing on the 27 th attempted to impose various other non-existent limitations on the Court’s order
that did not even include these. 

It is evident that Apple is suggesting these new supposed limitations to create some more excuses for its
planned noncompliance, just as it did when it willfully failed to comply with the Court’s December 22 order to
produce these transcripts in the first place.  I note that the April 12 order expressly rejects Apple’s various
excuses and limitations and enforces the original order. 

Unless you indicate otherwise, by 5:00 pm PST today, we will assume that Apple is refusing to provide these
witnesses for deposition and will proceed accordingly. 

From: Bartlett, Jason R. [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 1:56 PM
To: Diane Hutnyan; Mazza, Mia
Cc: AppleMoFo; WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service; Samsung v. Apple
Subject: RE: Apple v. Samsung Discovery Correspondence
Dear Diane,
Despite our prior requests asking that you identify your desired deponents promptly, you are sending us this list just
one day before Judge Grewal's May 10th deadline for taking these depositions.  This is despite our production
of the last of these transcripts on April 21st -- eighteen days ago, and six days before Judge Grewal's April 27th
deadline for compliance.
Moreover, despite our prior requests that you explain with specificity how any requested depositions are reasonably
occasioned by our transcript production, you have not done so.  Indeed, the names of at least some of the
individuals identified below do not even appear in the transcripts produced.  Samsung also affirmatively declined to
take Saku Hieta's deposition previously.  For Emilie Kim, Samsung previously deposed her for all of one
hour, despite Ms. Kim's setting aside an entire day for her deposition.  Finally, as Samsung is well aware, it has
already deposed Richard Howarth for more than thirteen hours.
Please explain, with specific citations to transcript pages, why Samsung believes that it is entitled to take these
depositions.  Please provide your response by no later than 9pm tonight, so that we can determine whether we
need to raise Samsung's very late demand for these depositions with the Court.
Jason

Jason R. Bartlett
Morrison & Foerster
425 Market St.
San Francisco, CA  94105
Direct: 415.268.6615

From: Diane Hutnyan [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2012 12:21 AM
To: Mazza, Mia
Cc: AppleMoFo; WH Apple Samsung NDCal Service; Samsung v. Apple
Subject: Apple v. Samsung Discovery Correspondence

Dear Mia,
Please find below the list of deponents that Samsung has selected for further deposition pursuant to the April
12, 2012 Court order. 
1.            Richard Howarth
2.            Emilie Kim
3.            Saku Hieta
4.            Priya Balasubramaniam
5.            Andrew Bright
Apple should immediately provide dates that these witnesses are available for deposition.  Due to time
constraints, Samsung is willing to stipulate to extend the time to depose these individuals past May 10, 2012,
provided that all depositions take place by May 18, 2012.  Samsung expects that Apple will be willing to so
stipulate as it withheld more than 200 deposition transcripts, amounting to more than 20,000 total pages of
testimony.  If Apple is unwilling to stipulate, then we expect the identified deponents to appear for
deposition on May 10 at our offices in Redwood Shores.
We look forward to hearing from you. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------