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

Filing 2093

ORDER by Judge Lucy H. Koh granting 2070 Motion Allowing cross-use of discovery (lhklc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 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 PERMITTING CROSS-USE OF DISCOVERY MATERIALS Samsung has filed a motion seeking an Order permitting cross-use of discovery materials 19 from Case No. 12-CV-00630 (“630 Case”) in its opposition to Apple’s post-trial motions. ECF 20 No. 2070 (“Mot.”). Apple has opposed Samsung’s motion, primarily on the ground that such use 21 violates the Protective Order entered in the 630 case. ECF No. 2088 (“Opp’n”); Case No. 12-CV- 22 00630, ECF No. 171-1 (“630 Protective Order”). Having considered the parties’ submissions, the 23 Court GRANTS Samsung’s motion. 24 As an initial matter, Samsung introduced materials produced in the 630 case with its 25 opposition to Apple’s JMOL motion filed on October 19, 2012. ECF No. 2053. It did not seek this 26 Court’s permission to use those materials until October 20, 2012, the day after it had introduced 27 them. ECF No. 2070. Apple is correct that this sequence of events is not ideal. However, Apple 28 has not argued that it would be in any way prejudiced by the alleged untimeliness of Samsung’s 1 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK ORDER PERMITTING CROSS-USE OF DISCOVERY MATERIALS 1 request. Indeed, much of the risk of such a late request falls on Samsung, because if this Court 2 were to deny Samsung’s request, Samsung would be left with a brief already on file from which 3 portions would have to be stricken, without further opportunity to revise. Apple’s Reply Brief is 4 not due until November 9, 2012; thus, Apple will have the same opportunity to respond to the 630 5 material that it would have had if Samsung had made its request sooner. Accordingly, the Court 6 will not deny Samsung’s motion on these grounds. 7 Apple’s primary argument is that the 630 Protective Order prohibits the use of documents 8 produced in that case in “any other litigation.” Opp’n at 3. Apple is correct that the literal terms of 9 the current Protective Order do not allow cross-use in the instant action of materials originally United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 produced in the 630 case. However, the Protective Order “is subject to further court order based 11 upon public policy or other considerations, and the Court may modify this Order sua sponte in the 12 interests of justice.” 630 Protective Order at 27. Thus, the fact that the Protective Order might 13 currently forbid the introduction of such materials does not establish that the Court cannot or 14 should not enter an Order permitting their use. 15 Samsung argues that evidence from the 630 case is particularly relevant now due to the 16 Federal Circuit’s recent ruling in the 630 case, which may bear on Apple’s claims in the present 17 case. Mot. at 2. Further, Samsung has pointed to various existing agreements for cross-use of 18 discovery from other related actions in the instant action and in the 630 action. Mot. at 3. The 19 Court agrees that the parties’ general practice of agreeing to cross-use supports permitting cross- 20 use here. Neither party has explained how the use sought here is materially different from the uses 21 to which the parties have already agreed. Indeed, here, the argument for allowing use is especially 22 strong, as Apple is seeking to permanently enjoin the sale of 26 Samsung products. Such an 23 extraordinary request should be evaluated in light of the full available record. 24 Apple’s Opposition provides no explanation of why, beyond the fact that the Protective 25 Order says so, this material should not be allowed. Rather, Apple argues repeatedly that the terms 26 of the current Protective Order do not permit this cross-use. But because the Protective Order 27 makes clear that the Court may alter it in the interests of justice, something more would be required 28 to justify denying Samsung’s request. Apple has provided, and the Court sees, no such 2 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK ORDER PERMITTING CROSS-USE OF DISCOVERY MATERIALS 1 justification. Indeed, as Apple notes in its opposition, the four documents to which it is specifically 2 objecting were produced by Apple in the 630 case. Opp’n at 3. Apple has not explained how the 3 introduction of its own documents could possibly cause Apple any prejudice. Accordingly, 4 Samsung’s request to use discovery materials from the 630 case in connection with its post-trial 5 briefing is GRANTED. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: October 26, 2012 8 _________________________________ LUCY H. KOH United States District Judge 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK ORDER PERMITTING CROSS-USE OF DISCOVERY MATERIALS

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?