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).

Download PDF
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

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?