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

Filing 1668

ORDER Regarding Musika Objections. Signed by Judge Lucy H. Koh on 8/10/2012. (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/10/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

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

Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER RE: OBJECTIONS TO MUSIKA

18
After reviewing the parties’ briefing, considering the record in the case, and balancing the
19
considerations set forth in Federal Rule of Evidence 403, the Court rules on Samsung’s objections
20
as follows:
21
A. Terry Musika
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1. Samsung’s Objections
COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION

WITNESS
AND
EXHIBIT NO.
PDX34.23
Sustained in part. PDX34.23 lists reasons that “Samsung’s Expense Data [may
be] Unreliable.” Samsung objects to one of the bullet points in the “Management
Forthcoming?” section. The bullet reads, “Violated court orders to produce
financial records, sanctions.” The Court previously held that evidence of
Samsung’s discovery conduct related to financial records was admissible
evidence. See ECF No. 1267 at 5:7-10 (denying Samsung's motion in limine #5).
1
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS

However, under FRE 403, the demonstrative is unduly prejudicial. Although
Samsung’s failure to timely produce data in discovery is probative of the
accuracy of the data, there is a danger that evidence of discovery sanctions and
violations of discovery orders will unfairly prejudice Samsung. Apple must
therefore delete the bullet that reads, “Violated court orders to produce financial
records, sanctions.”

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

PDX34.29-30

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

PDX25C

In addition, in order to minimize the undue prejudice of evidence of discovery
misconduct to Samsung, but to allow the jury to hear probative evidence
regarding the accuracy of Samsung’s financial data, Apple will be permitted to
ask one leading question to elicit that Samsung’s conduct in discovery has led to
questions regarding the accuracy of the data produced. Apple may ask: “Hasn’t a
Magistrate Judge managing the discovery process in this case questioned the
accuracy of Samsung’s financial data?” Unless Samsung opens the door, no
other questions in this line of questioning will be permitted, and Apple may not
reference this issue in its demonstratives.
Overruled. Samsung Electronics Corporation, the Korean parent, sells phones to
its American subsidiary at a significant fraction of retail price. Thus, the profits
of the American subsidiary represent only a small fraction of total Samsung
profits. PDX34.29-30 explains Samsung’s business structure to the jury, and
indicates how profits are calculated in each corporate entity. Because those
profit calculations arise from the company’s structure and tax treatment, this
evidence is relevant. The Court has already ruled that the probative value of
explaining the tax implications of Samsung’s business structure outweighs the
potential prejudice. See ECF No. 1267 at 5:18-21 (Order granting-in-part and
denying-in-part Samsung’s motion in limine #9). The Court did exclude any
suggestion that Samsung’s tax practices constitute improper tax evasion. See id.
However, the slides simply explain the tax practices, and do not make any moral
or legal judgments. Accordingly, the Court overrules Samsung’s objection.
Sustained.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

First, Samsung objects that PDX25C is inadmissible hearsay expert testimony.
The Court disagrees. PDX25C is not hearsay, it is a demonstrative used to aid
the testimony of the expert in presenting his opinions.
Samsung’s also objects that damages figures in PDX25C were not included in
Mr. Musika’s expert report. Apple explains that these damages figures were
calculated using the same methodology as in Mr. Musika’s expert report, but
were recalculated with two adjustments: (1) Mr. Musika used updated financial
information that Samsung had untimely disclosed; and (2) Mr. Musika omitted
damages related to claims dropped by Apple. The parties agreed not to object to
the use of updated financial damages opinions that were exchanged on July 28,
2012. See ECF No. 1554 (Order Granting Stipulation). Samsung cannot now
claim that the updated damages calculations disclosed on July 28, 2012 are
untimely.
However, the damages calculations in PDX25C are not the same as the damages
calculations that were exchanged on July 28, 2012, and to which the parties
2
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

stipulated. Apple has not explained this discrepancy, or explained why the
calculations used in PDX25C, which were disclosed on August 7, 2012, were
timely disclosed. For example, the July 28, 2012 calculation for Apple’s total
lost profits was $488,777,933, while PDX25C includes the August 7, 2012
calculation: $553,790,273. Apple may use PDX25C to present only damages
calculations disclosed pursuant to the July 28 updated damages calculations.
2. Apple’s Objections
COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION

WITNESS
AND
EXHIBIT NO.
Sustained. Mr. Musika’s prior testimony on damages in UniRam Tech., Inc. v.
UniRam
Transcript
Taiwan Semiconductor Mfg. Co., Ltd., Case No. C-04-1268-VRW, an unrelated
litigation, is of limited relevance and is likely to waste time and lead to jury
confusion. Accordingly, this evidence is inadmissible under FRE 403.
DX757
Overruled. DX757 is a royalty chart considered by Samsung’s damages expert
Mr. Wagner. Samsung seeks to use this chart in cross examining Apple’s
damages expert, Terry Musika. Because the royalty chart is relevant to the issues
discussed by the damages expert, Apple’s objection under FRE 402 and 403 is
overruled.

12
IT IS SO ORDERED.
13
Dated: August 10, 2012

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK
ORDER ON OBJECTIONS TO EXHIBITS