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

Filing 2003

PARTIAL OPPOSITION to ( 1990 Samsung's Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal And For An Order Prohibiting The Parties From Communicating With Jurors filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments:****EXHIBIT 1 FILED IN ERROR--SEE DOCKET #2004**** # 1 Declaration Sabri Decl, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit E)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 9/25/2012) Modified text on 9/26/2012 (dhmS, COURT STAFF). Modified on 9/27/2012 (mpb, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421) JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368) ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363) RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425) JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 WILLIAM F. LEE 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) 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, Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK APPLE’S PARTIAL OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL AND FOR AN ORDER PROHIBITING THE PARTIES FROM COMMUNICATING WITH JURORS [DKT. NO. 1990] 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 APPLE’S PARTIAL OPP. TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO SEAL & FOR ORDER PROHIBITING JUROR COMMUNICATIONS CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3198561 1 Continuing the attack on the jury and the jury process that Samsung has waged in the 2 press worldwide, Samsung has filed a motion for a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct. 3 Samsung seeks to seal the arguments and certain supporting declarations and exhibits concerning 4 the alleged misconduct, citing concern for the jurors’ privacy and the integrity of the proceedings. 5 But Samsung’s actions belie its words, as it has publicly filed documents that reveal the very facts 6 that it seeks to seal. As a result, the media were quickly able to discern not only that Samsung 7 had accused the jury of misconduct but also which juror it accused. 8 9 Nonetheless, because it is the province of the Court to determine whether undue burdens are placed on those who serve on the Court’s juries, Apple would not object if the Court 10 determines in its discretion that sealing Samsung’s allegations of misconduct is the best way to 11 prevent such burdens. 12 Samsung also moves for an order “prohibiting the parties from any further communication 13 with jurors” until after the matters raised in its post-trial motions have been “finally resolved.” 14 (Dkt. No. 1099 (“Mot.”) at 2.) Apple objects because there is no valid basis for Samsung’s 15 request, which is not supported by any of the authority Samsung cites and is not the proper 16 subject of an administrative motion in any event. Nor does Samsung reveal whether it has 17 already contacted jurors. Apple has not done so to date, yet Samsung is seeking to preclude 18 Apple from equal access to information. Nevertheless, despite the lack of any merit to Samsung’s 19 request, Apple will not contact any jurors until the Court resolves this administrative motion. 20 Finally, as to the portion of Samsung’s motion that addresses sealing of documents that 21 Apple has designated as confidential, Apple already has made the appropriate showing as to the 22 two documents that it seeks to have sealed. 23 24 25 I. APPLE DOES NOT OBJECT IF THE COURT DETERMINES THAT SAMSUNG’S JUROR MISCONDUCT ALLEGATIONS SHOULD BE SEALED. Samsung seeks to seal the entirety of its jury misconduct arguments, as well as the 26 evidence submitted in support of that argument. (Mot. at 1.) All of that evidence is publicly 27 available information. (See Estrich JMOL Decl. Exs. A-O.) Yet at the same time Samsung 28 purported to seek privacy for the jury it attacked, it revealed that it was accusing the jury of APPLE’S PARTIAL OPP. TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO SEAL & FOR ORDER PROHIBITING JUROR COMMUNICATIONS CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3198561 1 1 misconduct, both in portions of its filing that it made public and in its motion to seal. The public 2 version of the jury misconduct motion referenced multiple cases involving juror misconduct and a 3 bankruptcy court action involving a juror. (See Dkt. No.1990-3 at iii-ix.) Samsung also publicly 4 filed excerpts from the voir dire trial transcript. (See Dkt. No. 1991-1.) Samsung’s motion to seal 5 makes clear that its jury misconduct motion has the “potential to subject all of the jurors to extra- 6 judicial scrutiny and public criticism” (Mot. at 1). As a result, the media are now widely 7 reporting that Samsung is attacking the jury verdict based on alleged juror misconduct. See, e.g., 8 9 smartphone? (attached as 10 Exhibit A to Declaration of Nathan Sabri (“Sabri Decl.”) filed herewith). One such article reports 11 that the juror who is the subject of Samsung’s accusations recognizes that Samsung’s accusations 12 are about him. 13 id=57594&terms=%40ReutersTopicCodes+CONTAINS+%27ANV%27 (Sabri Decl. Ex. B). Samsung’s attack on the jury’s verdict began with Samsung’s issuance of a stinging press 14 15 release after the reading of the verdict on August 24, see 16 57500159-37/jury-awards-apple-more-than-$1b-finds-samsung-infringed (quoting Samsung press 17 release) (Sabri Decl. Ex. C), and continues to this day. That attack is directed at, among other 18 things, the same juror who is the target of Samsung’s jury misconduct motion. See 19 (Sabri Decl. Ex. D). Samsung’s attacks are baseless, and its jury misconduct motion frivolous on its face. 20 21 Among other failings, Samsung’s motion does not even address, let alone disclose, when 22 Samsung learned the facts on which it bases its misconduct allegations, and in particular, whether 23 Samsung impermissibly delayed raising this issue, as the facts Samsung does disclose suggest. 24 See, e.g., Robinson v. Monsanto Co., 758 F.2d 331, 335 (8th Cir. 1985) (party waived jury 25 misconduct arguments where information disclosed at voir dire could have permitted discovery of 26 information at issue).1 27 28 1 On the afternoon of September 24, Apple asked Samsung to disclose how and when it learned of each of the facts underlying its allegations and notified Samsung of its intent to file an expedited APPLE’S PARTIAL OPP. TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO SEAL & FOR ORDER PROHIBITING JUROR COMMUNICATIONS CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3198561 2 1 Samsung’s sealing motion is also defective, both because all the information it seeks to 2 seal is public, and because Samsung failed to redact enough material from its jury misconduct 3 motion and supporting papers to keep the substance of its allegations secret. Notwithstanding the 4 flaws in Samsung’s sealing motion, Apple understands that accusations like the ones Samsung 5 has made, however unwarranted, could cause a significant invasion of privacy of all the jurors 6 and place an undue burden upon them. If the Court concludes that that would be the case, Apple 7 would not object to sealing of the juror misconduct portion of Samsung’s JMOL Motion and 8 related exhibits and to sealing of relevant portions of the opposition and reply on this issue. 9 10 11 II. SAMSUNG’S “ADMINISTRATIVE” MOTION FOR AN ORDER PROHIBITING APPLE FROM COMMUNICATING WITH THE JURORS SHOULD BE DENIED. The jury issued its verdict more than a month ago. The Court advised the jurors at that 12 time that they were “free to discuss [the case] with whomever [they’d] like,” but “also free not to 13 discuss the case with anyone.” (Trial Tr. at 4317:12-14, 21-23.) The Court noted that “often the 14 attorneys in a case find it useful to talk to jurors after the case is concluded to get their 15 impressions,” and “[t]here are also many members of the media here who would like to speak 16 with you.” (Trial Tr. at 4317:14-20.) A quick internet search reveals that multiple jurors have 17 spoken with multiple media sources since that time. See, e.g., 18 SB10000872396390444270404577612160843420578.html (Sabri Decl. Ex. E). 19 Despite this passage of time, Samsung now asks that the parties be “prohibit[ed] . . . from 20 any further communications with jurors who served during the trial until the matters raised by 21 [Samsung’s JMOL] motion have been finally resolved.” (Mot. at 1 (emphasis added).) This 22 relief is not the proper subject of an administrative motion and can be denied on that ground alone. 23 See Civil L. R. 7-11. Even if considered, Samsung’s request should be denied on the merits. 24 First, Samsung’s requested order would not serve Samsung’s stated purpose of protecting 25 jurors from “extra-judicial scrutiny and public criticism.” (Mot. at 1.) Samsung asks that the 26 parties be precluded from communicating with the jurors, but does not seek to bar the media from 27 28 motion to compel such disclosure if Samsung does not provide it voluntarily. Apple is waiting for Samsung’s response. APPLE’S PARTIAL OPP. TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO SEAL & FOR ORDER PROHIBITING JUROR COMMUNICATIONS CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3198561 3 1 communicating with the jurors—even though Samsung identifies “further inquiries from . . . the 2 media and others” as a basis for its motion. (Id.; see also Dkt. No. 1990-2 (Proposed Order).) 3 Apple has no intention of subjecting jurors to unwanted scrutiny or criticism, and Apple’s Rule 4 50 and 59 motion did not provide any grounds for doing so. Samsung offers no basis for the 5 Court to prevent Apple from contacting jurors until Samsung’s JMOL Motion is fully resolved, 6 which presumably includes any appeal. Apple notes that Samsung does not state whether 7 Samsung has already contacted any of the jurors and is thus seeking now to bar Apple from an 8 opportunity of which Samsung has already taken advantage. 9 Second, Samsung’s authorities do not support its requested relief and actually contradict 10 its position. Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu did not involve juror interviews at all, but 11 rather the “compelling reasons” standard for sealing. 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). 12 Muhammad v. Woodford, No. 04-cv-1856, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119841, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 13 11, 2008), and Bryson v. United States, 238 F.2d 657, 655 (9th Cir. 1956), both specifically note 14 that post-verdict interviews may be proper under certain circumstances. Samsung’s requested 15 order should be denied. 16 17 III. EXHIBITS 14 AND 28 TO THE PIERCE DECLARATION SHOULD REMAIN SEALED. 18 Samsung also asks that the Court seal Exhibit Nos. 13, 14, 18, 19, and 28 to the 19 Declaration of John Pierce in Support of Samsung’s JMOL Motion, which contain information 20 previously designated as confidential by Apple and third party Intel. 21 Apple has submitted the required declaration to support sealing for Exhibit Nos. 14 and 28. 22 (Dkt. No. 1994.) The Court previously ordered that both exhibits be sealed, in full or in part, as 23 they relate to capacity information and source code. (See Trial Tr. 1993:18-19 (Ex. 14); Dkt. No. 24 1649 at 8 (Ex. 28).) Apple no longer maintains a claim of confidentiality as to Exhibit Nos. 13 25 and 18 and does not object to their public filing. (Dkt. No. 1994 ¶ 3 .) 26 Samsung filed a corrected Exhibit No. 19 that does not require sealing, as the version 27 admitted at trial was redacted of Intel-confidential information, and requested to remove the 28 previous incorrectly-filed version. (Dkt. No. 2000-1.) APPLE’S PARTIAL OPP. TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO SEAL & FOR ORDER PROHIBITING JUROR COMMUNICATIONS CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3198561 4 1 Dated: September 25, 2012 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 2 3 By: /s/ Michael A. Jacobs Michael A. Jacobs 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff APPLE INC. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPLE’S PARTIAL OPP. TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO SEAL & FOR ORDER PROHIBITING JUROR COMMUNICATIONS CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3198561 5

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?