Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
1213
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART APPLE'S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE APRIL 12 ORDER; GRANTING-IN-PART SAMSUNG'S MOTION TO ENFORCE THE APRIL 12 ORDER; GRANTING-IN- PART SAMSUNG'S MOTION FOR SANCTIONS, re #965 Samsung's Motion to Enforce April 12, 2012 Order, #968 Samsung's MOTION for Sanctions and #885 Apples Administrative Motion For Clarification Of April 12 Order. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on 7/11/2012. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/11/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
SAN JOSE DIVISION
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
APPLE INC.,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, a
)
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
)
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York )
corporation; and SAMSUNG
)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, )
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER GRANTING-IN-PART
APPLE’S MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION OF THE APRIL 12
ORDER; GRANTING-IN-PART
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO ENFORCE
THE APRIL 12 ORDER; GRANTINGIN-PART SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR
SANCTIONS
(Re: Docket Nos. 885, 965 & 968)
In this patent infringement suit, the parties dispute the meaning and effect of the court’s
21
April 12, 2012 order (“April 12 Order”), and, by implication, a predicate order of the court issued
22
on December 22, 2012 (“December 22 Order”). Plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”) seeks clarification
23
of the April 12 Order. Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., LTD., Samsung Electronics America,
24
Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) seek to enforce
25
the April 12 Order and separately move for sanctions. On June 21, 2012, the parties appeared for a
26
hearing at which the court heard oral argument. Having considered the arguments and evidence
27
presented, the court GRANTS-IN-PART Apple’s motion, and GRANTS-IN-PART Samsung’s
28
motions.
1
Case No.: 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
1
I.
2
INTRODUCTION
By its motion, Apple seeks clarification that the April 12 Order does not require it to
3
produce unredacted court materials subject to protective orders entered by the International Trade
4
Commission (“ITC”) and the Local Rules of the District of Delaware barring the disclosure of
5
third-party confidential information.1
6
By its first motion, Samsung seeks production of at least redacted versions of the disputed
7
court materials, as well as details regarding Apple’s efforts to obtain consent to production from
8
the third-parties, so that it may pursue any necessary consents.2 Samsung also asks the court to
9
order the depositions it previously compelled after finding that Apple had violated the December
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
22 Order.3
11
By its second motion, Samsung seeks an order sanctioning Apple by: (1) finding that Apple
12
violated the December 22 Order by withholding deposition transcripts; (2) precluding Apple’s
13
experts from responding to, denying, explaining, commenting on, or otherwise testifying contrary
14
to the admissions contained in the withheld transcripts; (3) precluding Apple’s experts from
15
affirmatively relying on the transcripts and their contents, and striking any references to the
16
transcripts or to the employee statements within them that Apple’s experts have made or may make
17
in their reports or deposition testimony in this case; and (4) requiring Apple and its attorneys to pay
18
the attorney’s fees and costs Samsung incurred in connection with bringing the relevant motions.4
19
The court will address each motion in turn.
II.
20
LEGAL STANDARDS
Parties may obtain discovery regarding any nonprivileged matter that is relevant to any
21
22
party’s claim or defense. Relevant information need not be admissible at trial if the discovery
23
appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. The court must limit
24
1
See Docket No. 885 (Apple’s Admin. Mot. for Clarification).
2
See Docket No. 965 (Samsung’s Mot. to Enforce).
3
See id.
4
See Docket No. 968 (Samsung’s Mot. for Sanctions).
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
1
the frequency or extent of discovery if it is unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or can be
2
obtained from some other source that is more convenient, or the burden or expense of the proposed
3
discovery outweighs its likely benefit.5 Upon a showing of good cause, “the court may order
4
discovery of any matter relevant to the subject matter involved in the action.”6
Rule 37(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes sanctions against a party who
5
6
“fails to obey an order to provide or permit discovery under Rule 26(f), 35, or 37(a).”7 Sanctions
7
may range in severity from monetary to case-dispositive preclusion or terminating sanctions.8 The
8
selection of the particular sanction is left to the discretion of the trial court.9 Instead of or in
9
addition to the sanctions above, “the court must, after giving an opportunity to be heard, require the
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
party or deponent whose conduct necessitated the motion, the party or attorney advising the
11
conduct, or both to pay the movant’s reasonable expenses incurred in making the motion, including
12
attorney’s fees . . . [unless] the opposing party’s nondisclosure, response or objection was
13
substantially justified or other circumstances make an award of expenses unjust.”10 The disobedient
14
party bears the burden of showing that the failure was justified or that special circumstances make
15
an award of expenses unjust.11
16
III.
17
A. The Court’s December 22 Order
18
19
DISCUSSION
On August 3, 2011, Samsung propounded a series of discovery requests to Apple, but only
Request for Production (“RFP”) No. 75 is relevant here. RFP No. 75 requested:
20
21
5
See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 26.
22
6
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).
23
7
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(1)(A).
24
8
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i)-(vii); 37(b)(2)(C).
25
9
26
See Nat’l Hockey League v. Metr. Hockey Club, Inc., 427 U.S. 639, 642 (1976); David v. Hooker,
Ltd., 560 F.2d 412, 418-19 (9th Cir. 1977).
10
Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(5)(A)(ii)-(iii).
11
See David, 560 F.2d at 419; Liew v. Breen, 640 F.2d 1046, 1050 (9th Cir. 1981).
27
28
3
Case No.: 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
all documents relating to any lawsuit, administrative proceeding, or other
proceeding involving any of the Apple accused products, Apple IP, or patents
related to the Apple patents-in-suit, including, without limitation, any pleading,
paper, motion, affidavit, declaration, report, decision, or order, for cases to
include [10 listed cases].12
1
2
3
Samsung thereafter argued that Apple’s RFP No. 75 production response was deficient,13
4
and on December 16, 2011, the parties appeared for a hearing on a motion by Samsung to compel
5
production. The relevant section of the court’s December 22 Order is as follows:
6
The court finds Apple’s proposed definition of “technological nexus” to be an
appropriate measure under the balancing provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(b)(2)(C)(iii) for the production of relevant employee testimony from other
actions. Apple shall apply this standard and complete its production of all
responsive transcripts on a rolling basis and no later than January 15, 2012. To the
extent that Samsung identifies as relevant any cases that fall outside of Apple’s
production as limited by the “technological nexus” standard, the court will
entertain a further motion to compel the production of transcripts from those
cases, if the parties are unable to come to an agreement regarding production after
engaging in appropriate meet and confer.14
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
The court went on to identify Apple’s proposed definition of “technological nexus”:
13
Apple interprets “technological nexus” to include prior cases involving the
patents-in-suit or patents covering the same or similar technologies, features, or
designs as the patents-in-suit . . . [W]ith respect to design patent inventors, this
would include prior cases involving the asserted design patents or other design
patents covering the same designs or design elements. With respect to utility
patent inventors, this would include the asserted utility patents or other utility
patents covering touchbased interface functions, display elements, touch-screen
hardware, or touch-screen logic.15
14
15
16
17
B. The Court’s April 12 Order
18
After the January 15 deadline for compliance came and went, Samsung moved to enforce
19
the December 22 Order, and on April 9, 2012, the parties appeared for another hearing. Samsung
20
argued that two categories of Apple’s RFP No. 75 production response were either incomplete or
21
non-existent: “(1) deposition transcripts from proceedings Samsung has identified that fall within
22
the court’s December 22 Order, including depositions of Apple employees taken during the
23
currently-pending United States International Trade Commission Inv. No. 337-TA-796 (‘796 ITC
24
12
See Docket No. 867 (Apr. 12 Order) at 2.
13
See Docket No. 483 (Samsung’s Mot. to Compel).
14
See Docket No. 536 (Dec. 22 Order) at 5.
15
See id.; Docket No. 502 (Apple’s Opp’n to Samsung’s Mot. to Compel) at 21.
25
26
27
28
4
Case No.: 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
1
Investigation’); and (2) other material from these cases that satisfies the nexus standard, including
2
testimony of non-employee witnesses, declarations and affidavits, expert reports, hearing
3
transcripts, court rulings, and pleadings.”16
On April 12, 2012, the court issued another order. In relevant part, the court’s April 12
4
5
Order directed the parties as follows:
6
[T]he court GRANTS Samsung’s motion to enforce the December 22 Order as to
all deposition transcripts of Apple employees, testifying in their employee
capacity, from actions bearing a technological nexus to this case. Apple shall
produce the transcripts on a rolling basis and shall complete its production by
April 27, 2012.17
....
7
8
9
As in the scenario with Intel, the court sees no reason that the protective order in
this case is inadequate to protect third-party confidentiality interests. Apple
therefore shall produce the unredacted court documents, marked as “Highly
Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” from the eight cases that Samsung has
identified bear a technological nexus to this case. As above, Apple shall produce
the court documents on a rolling basis and shall complete its production by April
27, 2012.18
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
The court also ordered the following:
In order to mitigate the prejudice to Samsung caused by Apple’s failure to
produce all responsive deposition transcripts in a timely manner, Samsung may
take up to five additional depositions, for a total time not to exceed ten hours. The
ten-hour allowance shall not count against the 250-hour limit in this case.
Samsung must complete any deposition to be taken as a result of this order by
May 10, 2012.19
15
16
17
18
C. Apple’s Motion for Clarification and Samsung’s Motion to Enforce
19
Apple acknowledges that it has not produced all unredacted court documents from certain
20
cases before the ITC and in the District of Delaware because, Apple claims, either the ITC
21
protective order or District of Delaware Local Rule 26.2 bars the disclosure of confidential
22
unredacted court documents absent third-party consent.20 Apple points out that it has already
23
16
24
See Docket No. 867 (Apr. 12 Order) at 8. The December 22 Order did not address the “other
materials” category of documents.
25
17
See id. at 10.
26
18
See id. at 12.
27
19
See id at 10.
28
20
See Docket No. 885 (Apple’s Admin. Mot. for Clarification) at 2-3.
5
Case No.: 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
1
produced unredacted court documents stemming from other cases in which the relevant ITC
2
protective order allowed for disclosure when compelled by a court order, as well those in which the
3
third-party gave its consent.21 Apple also claims that it produced all court documents that do not
4
contain confidential information.22 Apple therefore requests that the court clarify whether
5
withholding these remaining materials violates the April 12 Order. Apple also requests that the
6
court clarify whether the April 12 Order was intended to permit Samsung to depose anyone it
7
chose, or only those individuals whose depositions are necessary to mitigate any prejudice to
8
Samsung stemming from Apple’s untimely productions.23 If only the latter, Apple argues Samsung
9
must demonstrate a nexus between an untimely produced transcript and Samsung’s choice of
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
deponent.24
11
Samsung responds that Apple’s motion for clarification is procedurally improper because it
12
is actually a motion for reconsideration,25 which is governed by a stricter standard.26 According to
13
Samsung, Apple’s current dilemma is entirely of its own making because Apple knew of the third-
14
party consent problem as early as November 2011, but waited until April 2012 to take serious
15
action.27 Samsung also argues that its selected deponents do bear a nexus to the untimely produced
16
transcripts, but even if they do not, the court’s April 12 Order lacked any such restriction.28
17
Samsung asks for an order compelling Apple to produce: (1) redacted versions of the withheld
18
documents; (2) third-party contact information so that it may pursue the outstanding consents; and
19
(3) the five deponents Samsung previously identified.
20
21
See id.
21
22
See id. at 1.
22
23
See id. at 5.
23
24
See id.
24
25
See Docket No. 1040 (Samsung’s Opp’n to Apple’s Mot. for Clarification) at 2-4.
25
26
26
See L.R. 7-9 (a)-(b) (requiring leave from the court and a showing of good cause before allowing
a party to file a motion for reconsideration).
27
See Docket No. 1040 (Samsung’s Opp’n to Apple’s Mot. for Clarification) at 4-5.
28
See id. at 5-7.
27
28
6
Case No.: 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
1
The court agrees with Apple that its request is properly viewed as a request for clarification,
2
not reconsideration, and that Apple need not produce unredacted court documents whose
3
production is barred by either the ITC’s protective order or the District of Delaware’s local rules.
4
These documents are outside of Apple’s “possession, custody, or control.”29
That said, Apple has represented to the court that it has petitioned the ITC for permission to
5
6
disclose the protected material, and that the request is still pending.30 If the ITC grants Apple’s
7
request, Apple must produce the unredacted materials to Samsung. In the meantime, while Apple
8
need not guess at what redactions might be required by the third-parties, Apple must immediately
9
produce to Samsung a log of Apple’s efforts to date to secure third-party consents. In fact, this
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
should have been produced long ago. The log must include the relevant third-party contact
11
information so that Samsung can itself try to secure the necessary consents.
12
In addition, no later than July 18, 2012, Apple shall produce the five deponents Samsung
13
previously identified. Nothing in the April 12 Order limited Samsung’s choice of deponents, as
14
Apple suggests. Samsung may question the deponents concerning any relevant topic it chooses. To
15
be clear, Samsung may choose to question the deponents regarding the untimely produced
16
transcripts, but it also may pursue other lines of inquiry relevant to this case.
17
D. Samsung’s Motion for Sanctions
18
Samsung claims that after the court’s April 12 Order issued, Apple belatedly produced a
19
host of transcripts from cases that indisputably bear a technological nexus to this case, including
20
thirteen deposition transcripts of the named inventors of the utility patents-in-suit, and twenty-five
21
utility and design inventor transcripts from the 796 ITC Investigation.31 Samsung argues that Apple
22
intentionally held back these transcripts until enough time had passed such that Samsung could no
23
29
24
25
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 34(a)(1); Nissei America, Inc. v. Cincinnati Milacros, Inc., et al., 95 F.R.D.
471, 475 (N.D. Ill. 1982); see also Netbula LLC V. Chordiant Software, Inc., Case No. C0800019JW HRL, 2009 WL 3919495, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2009) (relying on Nissei to deny
party’s request for documents subject to an ITC protective order).
30
26
27
See Docket No. 1041 (Apple’s Opp’n to Samsung Mot. to Enforce) at 12 (“Apple has already
sought consent to produce unredacted documents—including filing a motion with the ITC to allow
such production.”).
31
28
See Docket No. 968 (Samsung’s Mot. for Sanctions) at 8-9.
7
Case No.: 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
1
longer make effective use of them.32 For these transgressions, Samsung seeks sanctions, as
2
previously described.
3
4
5
Apple responds that while it may have failed to comply with the court’s December 22
Order, its non-compliance was substantially justified for the following reasons:
In light of the meet-and-confer process that focused on prior inventor testimony, Apple
acted on a good faith belief that the December 22 Order did not require it to produce
transcripts of: (1) employees who are not trial witnesses in this case; and (2) employees
who are trial witnesses in this case, but whose prior testimony bore no technological nexus
to this case.33
Apple complied with the court’s April 12 Order because it produced all relevant transcripts
before the court’s April 27, 2012 deadline.34 Apple notes that Samsung’s counsel in this
case, Quinn Emanuel, is also counsel of record in several relevant investigations before the
ITC, and thus had access to this category of documents equal to Apple’s.35
Even if the court were to find that Apple failed to comply with the December 22 Order,
Samsung suffered no resulting prejudice. Apple notes that Samsung waited until May 9,
2012 to notify Apple of the deponents it selected,36 and that the testimony of the deponents
Samsung eventually chose bore no technological nexus to the transcripts Apple belatedly
produced.37 Apple also notes that Samsung failed to specifically identify what the belatedly
produced transcripts Apple produced following the April 12 Order contain, and why their
untimely production prejudiced Samsung.38
The sanctions remedy Samsung requests—precluding Apple’s experts from affirmatively
relying on the transcripts and their contents and striking any references Apple’s experts
have made or may make in their reports or deposition testimony to the transcripts or to the
employee statements within them—is unprecedented and impractical. For example, Apple
queries whether Samsung’s proposed remedy gives Samsung the right to impeach Apple
witnesses with their prior testimony, and whether Apple may even respond.39
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
32
See id. at 10-14.
21
33
See Docket No. 1042 (Apple’s Opp’n to Samsung’s Mot. for Sanctions) at 3-4.
22
34
See id. at 4-5.
23
35
See id. at 7-8.
24
36
25
See Docket No. 867 (Apr. 12 Order) at 10 (granting Samsung the right to take five additional
depositions “in order to mitigate prejudice to Samsung”).
37
See Docket No. 1042 (Apple’s Opp’n to Samsung’s Mot. for Sanctions) at 10.
38
See id. at 9-11.
39
See id. at 11-13.
26
27
28
8
Case No.: 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
1
To assess the merits of Samsung’s sanctions request, the court looks to: (1) what it ordered
2
Apple to produce in the December 22 Order and by when; (2) whether Apple complied; and (3) if
3
Apple did not comply, whether Samsung’s requested sanctions are appropriate.
There is really no question that Apple violated the December 22 Order. In fact, the court’s
4
5
April 12 Order already said as much.40 The December 22 Order directed Apple to produce
6
transcripts of Apple witnesses, testifying in their employee capacity, in cases bearing a
7
technological nexus to this one. It did not in any way exempt from production relevant transcripts
8
simply because the employee is not testifying in this case.41 Nor did the order apply the
9
“technological nexus” standard to individual transcripts, as opposed to overall cases. Apple
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
contends that its failure is excusable because the meet-and-confer process led Apple to believe
11
something different. But as this court has previously explained, once an order issues, all that is left
12
to do is to comply with the order as written.42 The court cannot tolerate anything less.
13
To be sure, the court’s December 22 Order was not limited to inventors. But even assuming
14
it did apply only to inventors, as Apple claims to have understood, the record is clear that Apple
15
produced inventor transcripts after April 12, 2012, confirming that Apple failed to comply with
16
even its own limited reading of the order. Moreover, if Apple believed that the December 22 Order
17
was unclear on this point, the proper course was for Apple to seek clarification immediately, as
18
Apple has shown it knows how to do. It was not to read self-serving limitations into the order.
19
Under Apple’s tortured reading of the December 22 Order, Apple could avoid producing highly
20
21
40
23
See Docket No. 867 (Apr. 12 Order) at 9 (“Apple must produce all relevant deposition transcripts
based on the standard that it itself proffered. This includes, but is not limited to, the eight cases that
Samsung has identified and justified as having an undisputed technological nexus to this action. In
addition, Apple must produce the deposition transcripts from the 796 ITC Investigation.”).
24
41
22
25
26
27
28
As previously discussed, this order should not be construed as sanctioning Apple for its failure to
produce relevant transcripts subject to protective orders or local rules barring their production
absent court or third-party approval.
42
See Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., Case No. C 11-1846 LHK (PSG), 2012 WL
1595784, at *3 n.16 (N.D. Cal. May 4, 2012) (citing In re Google Litig., Case No. C 08-03172 RMW
(PSG), 2011 WL 6951972, at *5 (N.D. Cal. July 8, 2011) (“Once the order compelling production
issued, the focus of this court's appropriate inquiry necessarily shifts to compliance.”)).
9
Case No.: 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
1
probative—and even damning—testimony from earlier cases simply by withholding a witness from
2
its trial list. Nothing in the court’s December 22 Order provides for such a result.
3
Having found that Apple imposed an unreasonable limitation on the December 22 Order,
4
the court also finds that Apple’s violation was not substantially justified. This leaves only the
5
question of whether additional sanctions, beyond these findings, are appropriately levied.
The Ninth Circuit has held that a party’s failure to produce documents as ordered is considered
7
sufficient prejudice to establish sanctionable conduct.43 Moreover, in the Ninth Circuit prejudice from
8
unreasonable delay is presumed.44 In considering alternatives, the court returns to the Ninth Circuit’s
9
familiar five-factor inquiry: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
6
court’s need to manage its dockets; (3) the risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions; (4) the
11
public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic
12
sanctions.”45 Where a court order is violated, the crux of the analysis lies in factors 3 and 5—the
13
risk of prejudice to the party seeking sanctions, and the availability of less dramatic sanctions.46
14
Here, factors 3 and 5 weigh in favor of monetary sanctions, but nothing more. Try as it might,
15
the court cannot find in Samsung’s papers or argument anything specific in the late-produced prior
16
depositions, beyond the delay, that especially prejudiced Samsung.47 In particular, Samsung identifies
17
18
19
20
43
See, e.g., Computer Task Group, Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004); Payne v. Exxon
Corp., 121 F.3d 503, 508 (9th Cir. 1997); Adriana Intern. Corp. v. Thoeren, 913 F.2d 1406, 1412 (9th
Cir. 1990).
44
23
See In re Phenylpropanolamine (PPA) Products Liability Litig., 460 F.3d 1217, 1236-37 (9th Cir.
2006) (“Prejudice from unreasonable delay is presumed. Failure to produce documents as ordered is
sufficient prejudice, whether or not there is belated compliance.”) (citing In re Eisen, 31 F.3d 1447,
1452-53 (9th Cir. 1994)); see also G-K Properties v. Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose,
577 F.2d 645, 647 (9th Cir. 1978) (noting that “in this era of crowded dockets,” willful disregard of
court discovery orders—including “last minute tender of relevant documents”—merits sanctions based
on the prejudice to the opposing party and the imposition on other litigants of the courts).
24
45
25
46
21
22
26
27
28
See Valley Eng’rs v. Electric Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 1998).
See id. (“We have said that where a court order is violated, factors 1 and 2 support sanctions and 4
cuts against case-dispositive sanctions, so 3 and 5, prejudice and availability of less dramatic sanctions,
are decisive.”).
47
See Docket No. 968 (Samsung’s Mot. for Sanctions) at 13-14; Docket No. 1088 (Samsung’s
Reply in Supp. of its Mot. for Sanctions) at 9-12.
10
Case No.: 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
1
no further analysis or specific further discovery it requires in order to understand what the transcripts
2
disclosed. And even if there is such testimony, Samsung is of course still able to use it to cross-examine
3
any Apple witness at trial. Finally, as to the availability of the least dramatic sanction necessary to
4
achieve Rule 37’s purpose, while the fees and costs requested by Samsung are reasonable—and
5
warranted—the remainder of Samsung’s proposal, especially prohibiting Apple’s experts from
6
affirmatively relying on the transcripts and their contents, while not permitting testimony to the
7
contrary, strikes the court as unduly burdensome for the trial judge to enforce.
8
9
No later than July 22, 2012, Samsung shall identify its requested fees and costs. No later
than July 29, 2012, Apple shall pay them.
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
10
IV.
CONCLUSION
11
As explained above, the court GRANTS-IN-PART Apple’s motion for clarification,
12
GRANTS-IN-PART Samsung’s motion to enforce, and GRANTS-IN-PART Samsung’s motion for
13
sanctions.
14
IT IS SO ORDERED.
15
Dated: July 11, 2012
16
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
Case No.: 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?