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

Filing 1623

ORDER re 1604 ATTORNEY ADMISSION. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on 8/8/2012. (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/8/2012).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN JOSE DIVISION

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

APPLE INC.,

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

20
21

Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE: ATTORNEY
ADMISSION
(Re: Docket No. 1604)

Yesterday the parties presented arguments on Samsung’s motion for an adverse inference
jury instruction. 1 That motion is now under submission.

22

In reviewing the docket, it appears that the Samsung attorney presenting Samsung’s

23

argument has not entered any appearance in this case. Ordinarily under these circumstances, the

24

court would simply remind all counsel of this obligation and request that this error be corrected

25

without undue delay. The presiding judge has made clear, however, her expectation that such

26
1

27
28

See Docket No. 1388 (Samsung’s Mot. for Spoliation Adverse Inference Instruction Against
Apple); Docket No. 1604 (Aug. 7, 2012 Mot. Hr’g on Samsung’s Mot. for Spoliation Adverse
Inference Instruction Against Apple ).
1

Case No.: 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE: ATTORNEY ADMISSION

1

appearances precede any presentation in this court, and that all counsel be admitted to practice in

2

this court. 2
Upon further review the court has discovered that not only did counsel present arguments

4

without first entering an appearance, there is no record in the court’s database that she is admitted

5

to practice in this court. This is potentially a more serious breach. While the requirements for

6

admission to this district’s bar may not be particularly onerous for one licensed to practice law in

7

the State of California, 3 they are no mere formality. Before rushing to judgment, however, the court

8

must consider the possibility that perhaps the error lies with the court and its recordkeeping. If that

9

is indeed the case, the court apologizes here and now to counsel for the inconvenience and any

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

3

insinuation of impropriety. But if the court’s records are not in error, the court will proceed to

11

consider what further measures should be taken.

12

No later than tomorrow at 5 p.m. PST, counsel shall file a declaration either confirming or

13

refuting the absence of any admission in the court’s records. Counsel should also present any

14

evidence in her possession confirming her admission and identify any previous appearances in this

15

district.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

Dated: August 8, 2012

18
19

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2

27

See Docket No. 1426 (Minute Order and Case Mgmt. Order) at 1 (“All trial lawyers must make
appearances in this case and must be admitted in this District.”).

28

3

See Civ. L.R. 11-1.
2

Case No.: 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE: ATTORNEY ADMISSION