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

Filing 1119

MOTION for Leave to File Supplemental Response Re Arguments Made At June 21 Hearing filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Of Jason R. Bartlett In Support Of Apples Motion For Leave To File Supplemental Response Re Arguments Made At June 21 Hearing, #2 Declaration Of Nathan Sabri In Support Of Apples Motion For Leave To File Supplemental Response Re Arguments Made At June 21 Hearing, #3 Exhibit A, #4 Exhibit B, #5 Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 6/22/2012) Modified text on 6/27/2012 (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
16

APPLE INC.,

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Case No.
Plaintiff,

v.

11-cv-01846 LHK (PSG)

APPLE INC.’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSE RE ARGUMENTS
MADE AT JUNE 21 HEARING

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,
Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28
APPLE INC.’S MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE RE JUNE 21 HEARING
Case No. 11-cv-01846 LHK (PSG)
sf-3162380

1

At oral argument, counsel for Samsung made several misstatements with respect to

2

Apple’s production of transcripts after April 27. Apple therefore moves for leave to file a

3

supplemental response to correct the record.

4

Samsung asserts that Apple produced in May and June transcripts that should have been

5

produced earlier pursuant to the December 22 and April 12 Orders. In particular, Samsung

6

claimed at the hearing that Apple continued to produce transcripts subject to the Court’s orders

7

from Elan matters well into June.

8
9

Apple produced no new transcripts from the Elan matters in May or June. Transcripts or
transcript excerpts that were exhibits to court documents from the Elan matter were produced.

10

Without exception, however, every one of them was (a) a duplicate of a transcript already

11

produced before April 27, or (b) a transcript whose production was not called for by the

12

December 22 and April 12 Orders because it involves a non-employee. (See Declaration of

13

Nathan B. Sabri in Support of Apple’s Supp. Response (“Sabri Decl.”) Ex. A.)

14

Apple also produced in May and June court documents from other proceedings, such as

15

the Motorola matters, that likewise contained transcripts and transcript excerpts that were court

16

documents. Apple has re-reviewed every transcript and transcript excerpt produced and

17

confirmed that it was (a) previously produced, (b) a non-Apple employee, or (c) from a case with

18

no technological nexus. (Sabri Decl. ¶ 2, Ex. A.)

19

Only three transcripts outside the foregoing categories were produced by Apple after April

20

27. These were transcripts prepared no earlier than April 9, 2012 (Nima Parivar); April 10, 2012

21

(William Stewart); and April 11, 2012 (Greg Novick), and were taken in the ongoing Motorola

22

litigation. (Id. ¶ 4.) Due to the proximity of these three depositions to the date of the April 12

23

Order, the transcripts were not in the set that counsel for Apple in Motorola provided for

24

production to Samsung immediately after the Order issued. (Id.) After Samsung’s counsel in this

25

action, which also represents Motorola in that litigation, inquired about more recent transcripts,

26

we immediately contacted counsel for Apple in all of the related matters again to ask whether any

27

new deposition transcripts had come in. (Id.) The three transcripts discussed above were among

28

the transcripts provided in response, and Apple produced them promptly. (Id.) Apple notes
APPLE INC.’S MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE RE JUNE 21 HEARING
Case No. 11-cv-01846 LHK (PSG)
sf-3162380

1

1

further that the transcripts are not “prior” testimony. (Dkt. No. 536 (December 22 Order) at 5

2

(relating to production of “Transcripts of Prior Deposition Testimony of Apple Witnesses”); Dkt.

3

No. 867 (April 12 Order) at 8 (“In relevant part, the court’s December 22 Order addressed

4

Samsung’s motion to compel ‘transcripts of prior deposition testimony of Apple witnesses

5

testifying in their employee capacity.’”)) (emphasis added).)
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

6
7
8
9
10

Dated: June 22, 2012
By: /s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Michael A. Jacobs
Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE INC.’S MOT. FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE RE JUNE 21 HEARING
Case No. 11-cv-01846 LHK (PSG)
sf-3162380

2