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

Filing 1522

ORDER On Samsung's Objections to Stringer Exhibits. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 7/31/2012. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/31/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A
)
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
)
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York )
corporation; SAMSUNG
)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, )
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
I.

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON SAMSUNG’S
OBJECTIONS TO TRIAL EXHIBITS OF
CHRISTOPHER STRINGER

SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO TRIAL EXHIBITS OF CHRISTOPHER
STRINGER
Samsung has filed objections to thirteen of Apple’s exhibits to be used during the direct

21

examination of Christopher Stringer. After reviewing the parties’ briefing, considering the record

22

in the case, and balancing the considerations set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the Court

23

rules on Apple’s objections as follows:

24

EXHIBIT
NUMBER
PX1, PX2,
PX165,
PX166,
PX167,
PX168,
PX170, PX171

25
26
27
28

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION
Overruled. Apple is introducing phones timely produced during discovery and
photographs of these phones.

1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON SAMSUNG’S OBECTIONS TO TRIAL EXHIBITS OF CHRISTOPHER STRINGER

1

PX3, PX4

2
3
4

PX157

5
6
7
8

PX162, PX164

Overruled. Mr. Stringer is an industrial designer and may be competent to testify
regarding trends that he observed in the design of publically available phones.
Moreover, although PX3 and PX4 present only a selection of Samsung phones,
both exhibits are probative of Apple’s copying allegations. The risk of unfair
prejudice of PX3 and PX4 does not substantially outweigh their probative value,
therefore they are admissible.
Sustained. PX157 is inadmissible hearsay. It does not qualify for the public
record exception to the hearsay rule because it is not produced by a public office
nor does it set out that office’s activities as required by Rule 803(8). Moreover,
Apple’s proposed non-hearsay use is still hearsay: “illustrat[ing] Mr. Stringer’s
testimony” is still using the exhibit for the truth of the matter asserted, namely
that Apple won a design award.
Overruled. The CAD drawings shown in PX162 and PX164 were produced in
July 2011, and were therefore made available in a timely manner.

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

Dated: July 30, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON SAMSUNG’S OBECTIONS TO TRIAL EXHIBITS OF CHRISTOPHER STRINGER