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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421) JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368) ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363) RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425) JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 WILLIAM F. LEE WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180) WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 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

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?