Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
1614
MOTION for Leave to File Sur-Reply to Samsung's Motion for De Novo Determination of Dispositive Matter Referred to Magistrate Judge, In the Alternative, Motion for Relief from Nondispositive Pretrial Order of Magistrate Judge filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Apple's Sur-Reply to Samsung's Motion)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 8/8/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
hmcelhinny@mofo.com
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
mjacobs@mofo.com
RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421)
rkrevans@mofo.com
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
jtaylor@mofo.com
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
atucher@mofo.com
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
rhung@mofo.com
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
jasonbartlett@mofo.com
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
WILLIAM F. LEE
william.lee@wilmerhale.com
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)
mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: (650) 858-6000
Facsimile: (650) 858-6100
11
12
Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
SAN JOSE DIVISION
17
18
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,
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,
24
Case No.
11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
APPLE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE SUR-REPLY TO
SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR DE
NOVO DETERMINATION OF
DISPOSITIVE MATTER
REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE
JUDGE, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
NONDISPOSITIVE PRETRIAL
ORDER OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
Defendants.
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR DE NOVO DETERMINATION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3180389
1
Samsung persists in seeking de novo review of Judge Grewal’s Order that an adverse
2
inference instruction be given, but its Reply Memorandum raises an entirely new argument for
3
why de novo review is required. Samsung argues, for the first time on reply, that a federal
4
magistrate judge lacks inherent power to impose sanctions. (Compare Dkt. No. 1579 (Reply) at
5
7-9 with Dkt. No. 1392 (Mot.) at 2-3.) Apple moves for permission to file the attached sur-reply
6
memorandum to rebut this new argument.
7
8
Dated: August 8, 2012
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
9
By:
10
11
/s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Michael A. Jacobs
Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR DE NOVO DETERMINATION
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3180389
1
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?