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

Filing 1085

MOTION to Strike #1040 Opposition to Notice of Motion for Clarification of April 12, 2012 Order, filed by Apple Inc.. Responses due by 6/26/2012. Replies due by 7/3/2012. (Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 6/12/2012) Modified text on 6/13/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
[e-mail]
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
[e-mail]
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

10
11
12

WILLIAM F. LEE
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN JOSE DIVISION

16
17

APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

18
19
20
21
22
23
24

v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York
corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company,

Case No.

11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

APPLE’S MOTION TO STRIKE
SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO
NOTICE OF MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION OF APRIL 12,
2012 ORDER

Defendants.

25
26
27
28
APPLE’S MOT. TO STRIKE OPP. TO NOTICE OF MOT. FOR CLARIFICATION OF APRIL 12, 2012 ORDER
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3142580

1

Apple’s motion for administrative relief for clarification of the April 12 Order has already

2

been fully briefed, and Samsung’s unauthorized “Opposition to Notice of Motion” (Dkt.

3

No. 1040) should be stricken as an improper attempt to oppose the motion for a second time.

4

Apple moved to clarify the April 12 Order on April 27 (Dkt. No. 885) and Samsung

5

opposed on April 30 (Dkt. 892). For the reasons already discussed in Apple’s reply (Dkt.

6

No. 894) Apple’s motion was properly styled an administrative motion, and Samsung’s original

7

opposition was timely filed. (See Local R. 7-11(b) (Opposition “must be filed no later than

8

4 days after” administrative motion.) The rules do not allow Samsung to file a second opposition

9

now.

10

When Apple received Samsung’s recent filing alleging that Apple’s notice of this motion

11

was a scheme to give Apple an extra brief and hence a “double helping of this Court’s resources,”

12

Apple wrote to Samsung to clear up its misconception. (Mazza Decl. Ex. A.) Under Local Rule

13

7-11(c), a hearing on a motion for administrative relief may be set by order of the Court, and

14

Apple filed its notice on May 22 at the Court’s request. (Id.) Apple agreed not to file this brief if

15

Samsung were to withdraw its second opposition. Samsung refused. (Mazza Decl. Ex. B.)

16

If the Court does not strike Samsung’s second opposition brief, Apple requests that this

17

brief be accepted in reply. Apple will not address the majority of the arguments in Samsung’s

18

second opposition because they have already been addressed in prior filings (see Dkt. Nos. 885,

19

892, 884, 965, 968, 1041 and 1042), but instead provides this update on the status of its

20

production of documents from related cases:

21

•

Apple has produced unredacted versions of all court documents from the Motorola

22

matters—including district court and ITC matters—with the exception of documents

23

containing Confidential Business Information of nine nonparties who have not

24

responded to Apple’s multiple requests for consent or have affirmatively refused to

25

consent. (Mazza Decl. ¶ 4.) Apple has produced redacted versions of these remaining

26

Motorola documents involving nine nonparties’ CBI, with the exception of fifteen

27

documents that were withheld in their entirety because they could not meaningfully be

28

redacted. Counsel for Apple sent Samsung a list of those fifteen documents,
APPLE’S MOT. TO STRIKE OPP. TO NOTICE OF MOT. FOR CLARIFICATION OF APRIL 12, 2012 ORDER
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3142580

1

1
2

identifying the third party involved in each. (Id..)
•

Apple has produced unredacted versions of all court documents from the Apple v.

3

HTC case pending in the District of Delaware, with the exception of four documents

4

containing Google CBI, to which production Google has objected. Apple has

5

produced redacted versions of those four documents. (Id. ¶ 5.)

6

•

After having given Elan notice and an opportunity to seek a protective order, Apple

7

has now produced unredacted versions of all court documents from the Elan v. Apple

8

case litigated in the Northern District of California. (Id. ¶ 6.)

9

•

Outside counsel for Apple in the Elan ITC investigation prepared a proposed redacted

10

set of the confidential documents from that matter and provided it to counsel for Elan.

11

Elan has requested more time to review the confidential documents before they may

12

be provided to counsel for Apple or Samsung in this matter. Outside counsel for

13

Apple in the Elan matter therefore has declined to provide the confidential documents

14

for production to Samsung at this time. (Id. ¶ 7.)

15

In its second opposition brief, Samsung once again does not dispute that Apple is unable

16

to produce unredacted versions of the remaining materials without violating protective orders.

17

Samsung once again does not dispute that Apple does not even have access to the unredacted

18

documents at issue because Apple’s outside counsel is forbidden to provide Apple access to them.

19

Samsung does not dispute that Apple has produced documents to the fullest extent possible within

20

the confines of the law. Once again, Samsung does not even request that Apple be compelled to

21

produce unredacted documents in violation of protective orders. Apple is aware of no other steps

22

that it could take to comply with the April 12 Order, and Samsung suggests none.

23

Dated: June 12, 2012

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

24
25
26
27

By:

/s/ Jason R. Bartlett
Jason R. Bartlett
Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

28
APPLE’S MOT. TO STRIKE OPP. TO NOTICE OF MOT. FOR CLARIFICATION OF APRIL 12, 2012 ORDER
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3142580

2