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)

Download PDF
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?