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).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
RACHEL KREVANS (CA SBN 116421)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
[e-mail]
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
[e-mail]
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

WILLIAM F. LEE
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

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

http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21621841/samsung-apple-seeks-new-trial-legal-feud-

9

smartphone?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com (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. http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/ViewNews.aspx?

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 http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-

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

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2012/08/182_118662.html (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., http://online.wsj.com/article/

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