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 17

quinn emanuel

trial lawyers | washington, dc

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 825, Washington, District of Columbia 20004-2400 | TEL: [phone] FAX: [phone]

WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NO.
[phone]
WRITER'S INTERNET ADDRESS
[e-mail]

April 26, 2012

Jason Lo
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90071-3197
[e-mail]
Re:

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

Dear Jason:
I write in reply to your letter of yesterday afternoon. First, we will proceed with the deposition
of Mr. Wakasa on Friday, April 27, 2012, as noticed by Apple. The deposition will commence at
8:00 a.m. PDT. I will not repeat my letter of this past Monday explaining why Apple must take
Mr. Wakasa’s deposition at this time. We expect you to attend.
Second, you continue to flout the Court's requirement of a pre-motion, in-person meet-andconfer between lead counsel. You now offer a post-motion, non-in-person meet-and-confer. Of
course this is patently inadequate under the Court’s February 22 Order. Your letter implies that
Google has hidden the identity of its lead counsel, which is curious because there are only two
names on our discovery responses and, in keeping with standard practice since the inception of
our legal system, the name on top is Google’s lead counsel. If Apple really wanted to meet and
confer, your lead counsel would already have contacted Ms. Candido. Of course Apple does not,
so he has not.
Third, you persist in seeking to impose on Google protective order protections far less robust
than Apple has long insisted for itself. You suggest that Google agree to give up those
protections while the matter is in dispute. As I have repeatedly said to you in our discussions,
quinn emanuel urquhart & sullivan, llp
LOS ANGELES |

865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor, Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, New York 10010-1601 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SAN FRANCISCO | 50 California Street, 22nd Floor, San Francisco, California 94111-4788 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
SILICON VALLEY | 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor, Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
CHICAGO | 500 W. Madison Street, Suite 2450, Chicago, Illinois 60661-2510 | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
LONDON | 16 Old Bailey, London EC4M 7EG, United Kingdom | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
TOKYO | NBF Hibiya Building, 25F, 1-1-7, Uchisaiwai-cho, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100-0011, Japan | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MANNHEIM | Mollstraße 42, 68165 Mannheim, Germany | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
MOSCOW | Voentorg Building, 3rd Floor, 10 Vozdvizhenka Street, Moscow 125009, Russia | TEL [phone] FAX [phone]
NEW YORK |

Jason Lo
April 26, 2012
Page 2

the sensible thing would be for Apple to enter Google’s proposed order without prejudice to
Apple’s ability to revert to the less restrictive Order should the Court compel Google to supply
source code access subject to the current Protective Order. You have refused to do this, further
demonstrating that you wish only to manufacture controversy. Our offer remains open.
Very truly yours,
/s
Heather H. Martin