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

Filing 2105

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting 2082 Motion to Compel; granting 2100 Motion for Leave to File (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/29/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 APPLE, INC., ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, a ) Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ) ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York ) corporation; and SAMSUNG ) TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG) ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL (Re: Docket No. 2082) Defendants. 18 On October 23, 2012, Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) moved this court to compel Samsung to 19 20 produce four experts for depositions by Friday, November 2, 2012. 1 In light of impending 21 deadlines in Apple’s related permanent injunction motion, the parties agreed to an expedited 22 briefing schedule and they waived a hearing. 2 Despite their agreement and the court’s order 23 reflecting the same, 3 Apple sought leave to file a reply to Samsung’s opposition because it believes 24 Samsung improperly cross-moved in its opposition for Apple to produce its experts for 25 26 1 See Docket No. 2082. 27 2 See Docket No. 2083. 28 3 See Docket No. 2085. 1 Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG) ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL 1 depositions. 4 Not to be left out, Samsung also filed another brief arguing that Apple should not be 2 allowed to file its reply and even if it can file its reply, if the court allows one party to take 3 depositions, it should allow both parties to take depositions. 5 4 The court GRANTS Apple’s motion for leave to file a reply and also considers Samsung’s 5 opposition to that motion. Having considered the numerous papers presented, the court GRANTS 6 Apple’s underlying motion and also orders Apple to produce its experts for Samsung to depose. 7 According to Apple, in Samsung’s opposition to Apple’s motion for permanent injunction 8 9 before Judge Koh, Samsung submitted declarations from two new experts and declarations from United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 two experts disclosed during discovery but whose statements are on new subject areas. 6 Apple 11 wants to depose the four experts before its deadline to submit its reply for the motion for 12 permanent injunction. It argues it is entitled to the late discovery because Samsung improperly 13 14 introduced experts after the expert discovery cut-off date, and so good cause exists to allow the depositions. 15 Samsung opposes Apple’s motion by pointing to the discovery and expert discovery cut-off 16 17 dates, which have long since passed. 7 Samsung argues that the post-trial schedule does not provide 18 for new discovery and that the parties both were aware that new evidence would be introduced at 19 the permanent injunction stage. Samsung opines that the proper place for Apple to object to its use 20 of new experts is in Apple’s reply. Samsung also asserts that Apple too has submitted declarations 21 from a previously undisclosed expert and that it has used its experts’ statements in ways 22 inconsistent with their earlier declarations and testimony, which is why Samsung introduced its 23 24 25 4 See Docket No. 2100. 26 5 See Docket No. 2103. 27 6 See Docket No. 2082. 28 7 See Docket No. 2090. 2 Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG) ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL 1 2 new experts. And, if the court decides that depositions at this late stage are appropriate, Samsung wants Apple to produce four of its experts for a new round of depositions. 8 In its reply, Apple argues that its previously undisclosed expert is not really a “new” expert, 3 4 but rather the co-worker of an expert who is unavailable for declarations at this time due to severe 5 illness. 9 Apple further asserts that Samsung’s failure to object in its opposition to Apple’s experts 6 7 8 9 and the topics they cover in their declarations should preclude it from asking for further discovery now. 10 Samsung responds that it did not contemplate post-trial discovery, but because Apple seeks it now, Samsung should be afforded the same opportunity. 11 To seek discovery after the deadlines set in the scheduling order, Apple must show good United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The focus of the good cause inquiry in the Rule 16(b) 12 context is the “diligence of the party seeking the modification,” in particular whether the party was 13 “diligent in assisting the [c]ourt to create a workable schedule at the outset of litigation,” whether 14 “the scheduling order imposes deadlines that have become unworkable notwithstanding its diligent 15 16 17 efforts to comply” and whether the party was “diligent in seeking the amendment once it became apparent that extensions were necessary.” 12 18 The court finds that Apple was diligent in its pursuit of the new discovery because it moved 19 the court shortly after receiving Samsung’s opposition. The court also finds persuasive Samsung’s 20 alternative argument that it too should be allowed to depose Apple’s experts. As Judge Koh 21 recently noted, Apple’s motion to permanently enjoin the sale of twenty-six of Samsung’s products 22 8 23 Apple objects to this request in its proposed reply brief as an improper cross-motion to which it should have an opportunity to respond. See Docket No. 2100. 24 9 25 10 See id. 26 11 See Docket No. 2103. 27 12 28 See Docket No. 2100. Adobe Systems Inc. v. Coffee Cup Partners, Inc., No. C 11-2243 CW, 2012 WL 3877783, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2012) (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609). 3 Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG) ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL 1 is “an extraordinary request” and deserves evaluation “in light of the full available record.” 13 2 Permitting deposition of the parties’ new experts and new subjects aligns with development of a 3 full record for the permanent injunction. 4 The court feels compelled to observe, however, that permitting these depositions does not 5 change the page limits or the deadlines set by Judge Koh in her August 28, 2012 order setting the 6 post-trial briefing schedule. 14 Samsung seeks this court to grant it leave to submit an additional 7 8 9 opposition based on the deposition testimony and to prohibit Apple from introducing new evidence in its reply. Those issues are not for the undersigned to determine. But the parties would be wise United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 to heed Judge Koh’s warnings that supporting documentation should be employed as corroboration 11 and not as an opportunity to circumvent the page limits. 12 13 Apple requests that Samsung produce its experts by November 2, but Samsung disclosed that one of its experts is available only on November 5, and the court finds extending the time for 14 both parties will not be prejudicial. The court also notes that Apple indicated in its papers that 15 16 Terry Musika suffers from a serious illness and is unavailable to sit for deposition. In light of that 17 fact, the court finds it appropriate that Apple not be ordered to produce him for another deposition. 18 Accordingly, 19 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Samsung shall produce by November 5, 2012, Dr. Yoram 20 Wind, Dr. Tulin Erdem, Samuel Lucente, and Stephen Gray for depositions of no longer than three 21 hours. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Apple shall produce by November 5, 2012 Marylee 23 24 Robinson, Dr. Russell Winer, and Phil Schiller for depositions of no longer than three hours. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: October 29, 2012 27 13 See Docket No. 2093. 28 14 See Docket No. 1945. 4 Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG) ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL 1 _________________________________ PAUL S. GREWAL United States Magistrate Judge 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 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 5 Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG) ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION TO COMPEL

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?