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

Filing 1128

RESPONSE (re #1119 MOTION for Leave to File Apple Inc.s Motion For Leave To File Supplemental Response Re Arguments Made At June 21 Hearing ) filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 6/23/2012)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)
[e-mail]

50 California Street, 22nd Floor
 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]


Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129
[e-mail]
Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)

[e-mail]
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor

Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
[phone]
 Telephone:
Facsimile:
[phone]



Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417)
[e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90017
 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
 INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION


 APPLE INC., a California corporation,

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK



SAMSUNG'S RESPONSE TO APPLE'S
“MOTION FOR LEAVE” TO FILE
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE RE
ARGUMENTS MADE AT JUNE 21
HEARING



Plaintiff,
vs.

 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,

Defendant.


02198.51855/4825907.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG'S RESPONSE TO APPLE'S "MOTION FOR LEAVE" TO FILE
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE RE ARGUMENTS MADE AT JUNE 21 HEARING

Apple's "motion for leave"1 to file a supplemental brief relating to Samsung's Motion for

1

 Rule 37 Sanctions — which seeks sanctions based on Apple's violation of the Court's December
 22 Order — is focused on whether Apple violated the Court's later, April 12 Order. Accordingly,
 Apple's submission does not bear directly on the basis for Samsung's Motion. It does, however,
 confirm that Apple violated the April 12 order.


Apple admits in its new submission that "three transcripts…were produced by Apple after

 April 27," the compliance deadline under the April 12 Order. (Dkt. No. 1119 at 1:19-20.) Apple's
 submission further states that each of these three employee transcripts were (1) taken in the related
 Motorola proceeding, which shares a patent in suit with this case, and (2) taken prior to the
 issuance of the Court's April 12 Order. (Id. at 1:20-22.) Though Apple therefore could have
 produced all three by the compliance deadline, they were not produced until May 31, 2012, over a
 month after the deadline. And, as Apple notes, they were only produced after Samsung's counsel
 inquired about the absence of transcripts post-dating March 27, 2012 in Apple's production.
 (Declaration of Nathan B. Sabri at ¶ 4.)


While confirming its violation of the Court's Order, Apple suggests that Samsung's

 statements to the same effect at the June 21 hearing were false, and that a correction is warranted.
 Samsung sought at the hearing to refer the Court to three transcripts responsive to the April 12
 Order that were produced after the April 27 deadline – the same three transcripts that Apple now
 admits were produced after April 27.

Samsung referred to one of these three and, for the other

 two, mistakenly recited the names and dates of two transcripts which Apple belatedly produced in
 violation of Section II.B.2 of the April 12 Order (compelling production of materials from related
 proceedings) instead of Section II.B.1 (enforcing the December 22 Order). Thus, all five of these
 transcripts were produced in violation of the April 12 Order's April 27th deadline. Further, the list
 Apple has attached as Exhibit A to the Sabri Declaration shows Apple has also violated Section
 II.B.2 of the Order by producing at least 12 other non-employee transcripts from technologically



02198.51855/4825907.1

1

While captioned as a "motion for leave," nothing in Apple's submission supports a request for
leave. Instead the submission is a vehicle to submit content to the Court without leave.
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-1SAMSUNG'S RESPONSE TO APPLE'S "MOTION FOR LEAVE" TO FILE
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE RE ARGUMENTS MADE AT JUNE 21 HEARING

1 related proceedings in May and June 2012. For all these reasons, Apple's claim that it was a
2 "misstatement" for Samsung to say that Apple violated the April 12th Order is unavailing.
3
4 DATED: June 23, 2012

Respectfully submitted,

5

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP

6
7
8
9
10
11

By /s/ Victoria F. Maroulis
Charles K. Verhoeven
Kevin P.B. Johnson
Victoria F. Maroulis
Michael T. Zeller
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AMERICA, LLC

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4825907.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-2SAMSUNG'S RESPONSE TO APPLE'S "MOTION FOR LEAVE" TO FILE
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE RE ARGUMENTS MADE AT JUNE 21 HEARING