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

Filing 2012

Declaration of Susan R. Estrich in Support of 1819 Samsung's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial, and/or Remittitur Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50 and 59 filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Estrich, Susan) (Filed on 10/1/2012) Modified on 10/2/2012 linking entry to document #1819 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]
 Kathleen M. Sullivan (Cal. Bar No. 242261)
[e-mail]
 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
th
 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5 Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Susan R. Estrich (Cal. Bar No. 124009)
 [e-mail]
Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
 [e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]
 Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
 Telecommunications America, LLC


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT







NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION
APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.

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,

Defendants.


CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF
SUSAN R. ESTRICH IN SUPPORT OF
SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT
AS A MATTER OF LAW, NEW TRIAL
AND/OR REMITTITUR PURSUANT TO
FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE 50 AND 59


Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

ESTRICH SUPP. DECL. ISO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR JMOL, NEW TRIAL, AND REMITTITUR

1

I, Susan R. Estrich, declare as follows:

2

1.

I am a member of the bar of the State of California, admitted to practice before this

3 Court, and a partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, counsel for Samsung
4 Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications
5 America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”). Unless otherwise indicated, I have personal knowledge
6 of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called upon as a witness, I would testify to such
7 facts under oath.
8

2.

I submit this declaration in support of Samsung’s Notice of Motion and Motion for

9 Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial, and/or Remittitur (the “Motion”).
10

3.

In response to Samsung’s motion detailing Velvin Hogan’s failure to reveal his

11 litigation with Seagate during voir dire and its impact on the integrity of the trial and the verdict,
12 Apple demanded that Samsung disclose the timing of its knowledge regarding those facts. A true
13 and correct copy of Apple’s email, along with further correspondence between counsel for the
14 parties that resulted in Apple’s agreement that any such disclosures would not constitute a waiver
15 of any privilege, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. By way of separate declaration, Samsung is
16 confirming to Apple that it did not know of Mr. Hogan’s undisclosed litigation against Seagate
17 until after the verdict. To date, Apple has not revealed whether it was aware of Mr. Hogan’s
18 litigation against Seagate prior to the verdict or prior to Samsung’s Motion.
19

4.

After Samsung filed its Motion on September 21, 2012, Reuters published an

20 account of an additional interview given by Mr. Hogan. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true
21 and correct copy of an article entitled “Samsung goes after jury foreman in bid to reverse Apple
22 verdict.” This copy of the article was printed on October 1, 2012 from the website Thomson
23 Reuters at the following URL: http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/09_24 _September/Samsung_goes_after_jury_foreman_in_bid_to_reverse_Apple_verdict/.
25

5.

According to the article, Mr. Hogan stated “that he didn’t mention the 1993 Seagate

26 case” during voir dire because “he wasn’t asked specifically to disclose every case he’d ever been
27 involved in.” Further, the article states that Mr. Hogan said that he sued Seagate for fraud.
28

//
-1-

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

ESTRICH SUPP. DECL. ISO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR JMOL, NEW TRIAL, AND REMITTITUR

1

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

2

Executed in Los Angeles, California on October 1, 2012.

3
4
5

By

/s/ Susan R. Estrich

6

Susan R. Estrich

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

ESTRICH SUPP. DECL. ISO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR JMOL, NEW TRIAL, AND REMITTITUR