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)

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