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

Filing 1234

OBJECTIONS to re #1189 Pretrial Conference Statement, #1193 Exhibits, #1195 Exhibits, #1224 Exhibits, Objections to the Use of Depositions, Exhibits, or the Admissibility of Materials Identified in Samsung's Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures by Apple Inc.(a California corporation). (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A)(Selwyn, Mark) (Filed on 7/13/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

7
8
9

WILLIAM F. LEE (pro hac vice)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts 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.

10
11
12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity, SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation, and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendants.

24

APPLE INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO THE
USE OF DEPOSITIONS, EXHIBITS, OR
THE ADMISSIBILITY OF MATERIALS
IDENTIFIED IN SAMSUNG’S RULE
26(a)(3) DISCLOSURES

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

25

Civil Action No. 11-CV-01846-LHK

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

21
22
23

26

Counterclaim-Defendant.

27
28
APPLE INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S
RULE 26(a)(3) DISCLOSURES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

Pursuant to Rule 26(a)(3)(B) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court’s

1
2

Minute Order and Case Management Order, dated July 9, 2012, Apple hereby submits the

3

following objections to Samsung’s use of depositions, exhibits, or the admissibility of materials

4

identified under Rule 26(a)(3).

5

I.

6
7
8

OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S IDENTIFIED TRIAL WITNESSES AND
WITNESSES BY DEPOSITION DESIGNATION
1.

Apple objects to Samsung’s presentation of testimony by deposition from any

presently-employed Samsung employee on the ground that those employees are not unavailable.

9
2.

Apple objects to Samsung’s presentation of testimony by deposition from any

10
witness whose deposition took place after the close of fact discovery, other than depositions for
11
which the parties explicitly agreed to waive such an objection.
12
13
14

3.

Apple objects to Samsung calling Jae Yoel Kim to testify at trial on the ground

that he lacks knowledge of the subject matter identified by Samsung for his testimony.

15
4.

Apple objects to Samsung calling Shin Nishibori to testify at trial on the ground

16
that it would impose an undue burden and unfair hardship on the witness.
17
18
19
20

5.

Apple objects to Samsung’s presentation of testimony from any of the following

witnesses on the ground that they were not listed in Samsung’s Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures:
Agnetta, Bryan

Hobson, Phil

Rogers, Lauren

21

Anderson, Creig

Hoellwarth, Quin

Rohrbach, Matthew

22

Andre, Bartley

Hong, Wong Pyo

Rothert, Curt

Anzures, Freddy

Hood, Chris

Rothkopf, Fletcher

23

Benner, Timothy

Howarth, Richard

Roy, Christine

24

Beyer, Steven

Hsu, Gwen

Russell-Clarke, Peter

25

Bishop, Craig

Ive, Jonathan

Ryu, Dongseok

26

Blevins, Tony

Janning, Michael

Saigal, Anuj

Blumenberg, Chris

Joswiak, Greg

Sandrowitz, Alyssa

Borchers, Robert

Jue, Eric

Satzger, Douglas

27
28

-1-

APPLE INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S
RULE 26(a)(3) DISCLOSURES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

1

Boule. Andre

Kerr, Duncan

Schiller, Phillip

2

Bright, Andrew

Kho, Wookyun

Schweigert, Jeremy

3

Brunner, Robert

Kim, Emilie

Sexton, Rory

Buckley, Mark

Kim, Seong Woo

Shavey, Geoff

Bungo, David

Kim, Youngho

Shi, Jason

5

Byun, Dooju

KPMG Witness

Shim, Jong-wook

6

Chaudhri, Imran

Kunst, Benjamin

Siller, Grace

Chen, Stephanie

Kwon, Owen

Sinclair, Steven

4

7

Chen, Wei

Lam, Ioi

Singer, David

8

Cheung, Benjamin

Lamiraux, Henri

Skinder, Jason

9

Choi, Sung Ho

Lee, Mark

Stringer, Christopher

10

Christie, Greg

Lee, SungSik

Takayanagi, Taichi

Chung, Minhyung

Lee, Sungyub

Tan, Tang

11

Conley, Cira

Lemay, Stephen O.

Tchao, Michael

12

Cornish, Lance

Leslie, Amy Katherine

Teksler, Boris

13

Coster, Daniel

Lindbergh, Suzanne

Ternus, John

Dammermann, Kurt

Lutton, Richard "Chip"

Twiggs, Sissie

De Iuliis, Daniele

Lynch, Brian

Van Os, Marcel

15

De Martel, Elisa

Mauney, Daniel

Voron, Vince

16

Dinh, Richard

Moon, Sang Jeong

Watrous, BJ

Durkin, Tracey-Gene

Ng, Stan

Whang, Eugene

14

17

Fadell, Tony

Nishibori, Shin

White, Justin

18

Ferrazano, Michael

Ording, Bas

Whiteside, Tamara

19

Forstall, Scott

Paltian, Marcus

Williamson, Richard

20

Ganatra, Nitin

Park, Chang-Soo

Wong, Erin

Gomez, Maribel

Park, Jaewoo

Woodring, Cooper

Gosler, Jared

Park, Ken

Wright, Anthony

22

Hammerstrom, Jessica

Platzer, Andrew

Yang, Woodward

23

Han, Jefferson

Prest, Chris

Yoon, Seongwon

Hankey, Evans

Proctor, Corrina

Zadesky, Steve

Harris, Christopher

Rangel, Arthur

Zorkendorfer, Rico

25

Herz, Scott

Roarty, Sean

Zorn, Andre

26

Hill, Arthur

21

24

27
28
-2-

APPLE INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S
RULE 26(a)(3) DISCLOSURES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

6.

1

Apple objects to Samsung’s presentation of testimony from any of the following

2

witnesses on the ground that they were not listed in Samsung’s Rule 26(a)(1) disclosures until

3

after the close of fact discovery:

4

Bogue, Adam

Lee, Sang Eun

Tse, Edward

5

Forlines, Clifton

Powell, Adam

Van Der Velde, Himke

6

Kim, Jae Yoel

Sim, Jaehwang

Van Lieshout, Gert-Jan

Kim, Jin Soo

Song, Han-Gil

7
8

II.

OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S TRIAL EXHIBITS

9
10
11
12

7.

Apple’s objections to Samsung’s proposed trial exhibits are contained in the

attached Exhibit A.
8.

Without waiving its position that the Court should adopt Apple’s proposed joint

13

trial exhibit list rather than Samsung’s, Apple states the following objections to certain items on

14

Samsung’s proposed joint exhibit list (Joint Pretrial Statement, Ex. 8):

15

(a)

Exhibits 1000-03 and 1010-13: improper sponsoring witness.

(b)

Exhibit 1028: FRE 402, FRE 403, improper sponsoring witness,

16
17

lacks foundation.

18
19
20
21
22

9.

Apple states the following objections to certain items that Apple included on its

proposed joint exhibit list (Joint Pretrial Statement, Ex. 7) with the understanding that Samsung
had sought to have these items included as joint exhibits:

23

(a)

Exhibit 1075: FRE 402, FRE 403, not admissible as prior art.

24

(b)

Exhibits 1050-57: Apple reserves all objections until time of

25

inspection.

26
27
28
-3-

APPLE INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S
RULE 26(a)(3) DISCLOSURES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

1

In the event the Court adopts Apple’s proposed joint exhibit list, Apple also reserves all

2

objections with respect to Exhibits 1050-1075 until Samsung provides copies of these materials

3

marked as exhibits for purposes of trial and Apple has had an opportunity to inspect them.

4
Dated: July 13, 2012
5
6

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

7
8

By:

9

Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

10
11
12
13

/s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Michael A. Jacobs

WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
By:

/s/ Mark D. Selwyn
Mark D. Selwyn

14
15

Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-

APPLE INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S
RULE 26(a)(3) DISCLOSURES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)

1
2
3
4
5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has
been served on July 13, 2012 to all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to
electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Civil Local Rule 5.4. Any other counsel
of record will be served by electronic mail, facsimile and/or overnight delivery.

6
7

/s/ Mark D. Selwyn
Mark D. Selwyn

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-

APPLE INC.’S OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S
RULE 26(a)(3) DISCLOSURES
Case No. 11-cv-01846 (LHK)