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

Filing 1274

MOTION for Leave to File Apples Administrative Motion For Leave To File Statement Regarding July 18, 2012 Pretrial Conference filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration Of Jason R. Bartlett In Support Of Apples Administrative Motion For Leave To File Statement Regarding July 18, 2012 Pretrial Conference, #2 Exhibit A)(Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 7/21/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

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]
Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

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]

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14

SAN JOSE DIVISION

15
16

APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

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,
Defendants.

24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S STATEMENT RE JULY 18, 2012 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3173273

Case No.

11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)

APPLE’S STATEMENT
REGARDING JULY 18, 2012
PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

1

During the July 18, 2012 Pretrial Conference, counsel for Samsung said that it currently

2

had pending before the Court a motion for relief from Judge Grewal’s May 4, 2012 Order

3

Granting Apple’s Motion for 37(b)(2) Sanctions Re December 22 Discovery Order (Dkt.

4

No. 898). Apple disagrees and believes that the Conditional Motion for Relief from

5

Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge (“Conditional Motion”) Samsung filed on

6

May 18, 2012, was deemed denied no later than July 3, 2012, and Samsung never sought relief

7

from Judge Grewal’s June 19, 2012 Order Clarifying May 4, 2012 Order (Dkt. No. 1106)

8

(“Clarification Order”), which provided Samsung the clarification it sought.

9

Under Civil Local Rule 72-2, Samsung’s Conditional Motion would have been deemed

10

denied on June 1, 2012 because the Court did not issue a separate order denying that motion or

11

setting a briefing schedule. To the extent that the 14 day period was tolled until Judge Grewal

12

issued his Clarification Order, Samsung’s Conditional Motion would have been deemed denied

13

on July 3, 2012. Samsung could have filed a subsequent motion for relief after receiving Judge

14

Grewal’s Clarification Order, but under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), the deadline for

15

that motion was July 3, 2012. No such motion was filed.

16

For these reasons, Samsung is incorrect that there is a pending motion for relief from

17

Judge Grewal’s May 4th or June 19th orders.

18

Dated: July _____, 2012

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

19
20
21
22
23

By:

MICHAEL A. JACOBS
Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S STATEMENT RE JULY 18, 2012 PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3173273