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

Filing 145

EXHIBITS re #144 Declaration in Support, Exhibits 15-25 to Declaration of Heather H. Martin filed byGoogle Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 16, #2 Exhibit 17, #3 Exhibit 18, #4 Exhibit 19, #5 Exhibit 20, #6 Exhibit 21, #7 Exhibit 22, #8 Exhibit 23, #9 Exhibit 24, #10 Exhibit 25)(Related document(s) #144 ) (Candido, Amy) (Filed on 4/28/2012)

EXHIBIT 16

GIBSON DUNN

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
Tel [phone]
www.gibsondunn.com

Jason Lo

+1 213.229.7153
Fax: [phone]

Direct

[e-mail]

T 03290-D0026

April 25, 2012
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
Heather H. Martin
Quinn Emanuel
1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 825
Washington, D.C. 20004-2400
Re:

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics. Co .. Ltd. et al., No. 12-630 (N.D. Cal.)

Dear Heather:
I write to follow up on several items which we have discussed in the past few days.
First, in your letter dated Apri124, 2012, you inaccurately attributed a statement to
me: "Separately, you stated on the phone that Judge Koh did not wish to burden third-parties
with the in-person meet-and-confer requirement." Contrary to your letter, I specifically
pointed out to you what should already have been obvious- that I could not presume to be
able to read into the mind of Judge Koh. Instead, we can only attempt to follow Judge Koh's
written Order. Apple believes that it has done so here.
In that same letter, you stated that Apple's motion "will be a far greater burden on [Google]
than any in-person meet-and-confer discussion, which would likely narrow or eliminate the
issues between us." When you first raised the idea of a lead counsel meet and confer
yesterday evening, Apple immediately offered to make its lead counsel available either
yesterday evening, or any time today. Google did not identify its lead counsel, much less
suggest a time when that individual would be available to participate in a meet and confer
discussion. Indeed, Google explicitly conditioned its agreement to the stipulated briefmg
schedule on Apple's filing of its Motion to Compel no later than 11:59 p.m. PT on April 24,
2012. Although Apple has since filed its Motion to Compel, there still is time for Apple and
Google to narrow the areas of dispute prior to the time Google must submit its Opposition,
and of course prior to the hearing on Apple's Motion. Apple's counsel remains ready and
willing to meet and confer. Please let us know the identity of Google's lead counsel, and the
times when he or she would be available to discuss.
Second, we discussed yesterday the logistics of conducting a review of Google's source
code. As you know, there is a dispute between Google and Apple regarding the prosecution
bar that should apply to those who may review Google's materials. As you must also know,
Google bears the burden of demonstrating good cause to adopt a more restrictive prosecution
bar provision than the one already in place. Given Google's burden, and given the limited
Brussels· Century City· Dallas • Denver • Dubai • Hong Kong • London • Los Angeles • Munich • New York
Orange County· Palo Alto· Paris • San Francisco • Sao Paulo· Singapore· Washington, D.C.

GIBSON DUNN
Heather H. Martin
April 25, 2012
Page2

time to conduct Preliminary Injunction discovery, Apple suggested that its representatives
should be permitted to immediately begin reviewing the Google source code, and that while
the Motion to Compel is pending, the existing protective order should be binding. In the
event the Court agrees with Google and institutes a more onerous protective order, Apple
would agree that that provision would be retroactively applicable to the representatives who
reviewed the Google source code. Please let me know if this proposal is acceptable to
Google, and, if so, whether Mr. Sowayan may begin his review of the materials on the
morning of April26, 2012.
Finally, Google has offered to make Mr. Wakasa available for deposition on April27, 2012.
Unfortunately, because Google has yet to make its source code available for review, and
because Google has failed to produce any other documents that would be relevant to
Mr. Wakasa's deposition, Apple is unable to proceed with this deposition on Friday. As you
know, one of the avenues of relief Apple will be seeking from the Court in connection with
its Motion to Compel will be an order compelling Google to produce appropriate witnesses
for testimony. In the event that Apple is successful on its Motion, we will revisit the issue of
taking appropriate depositions of Google witnesses after responsive documents have been
produced.
Sincerely,

v~~
/

J~sonLo

JCL/in

101279437.1

\