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

Filing 1537

RESPONSE to Samsungs Corrected Objections To Cross Examination Materials For Justin Denison by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Of Jason R. Bartlett In Support Of Apples Supplemental Response To Samsungs Objections To Cross Examination Materials For Justin Denison, # 2 Exhibit A)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 8/1/2012)

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]
RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421)
[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]

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]

Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

15

SAN JOSE DIVISION

16
17

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

18
19
20
21
22

Plaintiff,
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,

23
Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S “CORRECTED” OBJECTIONS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3176467

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
APPLE’S RESPONSE TO SAMSUNG’S
“CORRECTED” OBJECTIONS TO
CROSS EXAMINATION MATERIALS
FOR JUSTIN DENISON
Trial:
Time:
Place:
JUDGE:

July 30, 2012
9:00 a.m.
Courtroom 1, 5th Floor
HON. LUCY H. KOH

1

Samsung’s “corrected” objection to Justin Denison’s cross examination exhibits PX54 and

2

PX58 (Dkt. No. 1521 at 2) is a belated attempt to object on entirely new grounds to exhibits this

3

Court had just ruled were admissible (Dkt. No. 1520 at 5). On the merits, Samsung is also wrong

4

that these two exhibits and PX60 are “untimely” because not specifically identified in response to

5

a contention interrogatory. (Dkt. No. 1521 at 1.) Apple disclosed in response to interrogatory

6

No. 7 that it intended to rely on documents of exactly the kind Samsung now challenges.

7

Apple’s efforts to cause Samsung to disgorge its copying documents have been met with

8

resistance at every turn and resulted in the first (of several) sanctions orders against Samsung for

9

discovery violations. (Dkt. No. 880.) Apple eventually pried loose the documents it has

10

proffered as PX54, PX58, and PX60, but not until April did Samsung produce the third of these

11

documents. Samsung can hardly object that the documents were not individually identified in

12

Apple’s interrogatory responses, which were timely updated at the close of discovery. (See

13

Bartlett Decl. Ex. A.) The interrogatory did not even ask Apple to identify documents. (Id. at 6.)

14

Apple’s timely response to interrogatory No. 7 seeking evidence of willfulness discloses

15

that Apple will rely on Samsung’s internal documents showing that Samsung analyzed and

16

compared its products to Apple’s. (See id. at 9-10). Specifically, Apple disclosed that it would

17

rely on “documents that Samsung has produced, and continues to produce, evidencing

18

comparisons, analyses, studies, teardowns, and investigations of Apple products.” (Id.) This

19

disclosure describes all three of the challenged documents.

20

Apple also disclosed its intention to rely on the specific documents in question when it

21

served expert reports. Apple’s expert Terry Musika cites all three documents by name and Bates

22

number in his reports. (See Exhibit B to the Declaration of Terry Musika in Support of Apple’s

23

Opposition to Samsung’s Daubert Motion (Dkt. No. 991.) at Ex. 3-S and Ex. 53-S.)

24

Samsung’s objections are a misguided attempt to capitalize on this Court’s vigorous

25

enforcement of Judge Grewal’s orders, but Samsung did not include this challenge to Apple’s

26

evidence in its motion to strike before Judge Grewal. Had Samsung truly thought Apple’s

27

evidence objectionable, it could have made that argument in its motion to strike. It did not.

28

Samsung’s belated objections (e.g., to PX54, PX58 and PX60) should accordingly be overruled.
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S “CORRECTED” OBJECTIONS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3176467

1

1
2

Dated: August 1, 2012

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

3
4
5
6

By:

/s/ Michael A. Jacobs________
Michael A. Jacobs
Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S RESPONSES TO SAMSUNG’S “CORRECTED” OBJECTIONS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3176467

2