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

Filing 2158

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting 2141 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal; granting 2144 Motion to Compel (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/21/2012)

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 18 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, ) ) Defendants. ) Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG) ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS AND SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO COMPEL HTC SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (Re: Docket No. 2141, 2144) In this patent infringement suit, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics 19 20 America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) moves 21 this court to compel from Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) production of Apple’s recent settlement agreement 22 with HTC. 1 Samsung also moves to compel further depositions of three of Apple’s experts whose 23 declarations accompany Apple’s reply brief in its motion for a permanent injunction against 24 Samsung. 2 In its opposition, Apple requests two additional depositions if the court grants 25 26 Samsung’s request. The parties agreed to an expedited briefing schedule, Samsung waived its right 27 1 See Docket No. 2144. 28 2 See Docket No. 2141. 1 Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG) ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL 1 to a reply brief, and the court held a hearing on the two motions earlier today. Based on the papers 2 and the parties’ arguments at the hearing, the court GRANTS Samsung’s motion to compel 3 depositions, GRANTS Apple’s request for two additional depositions, and GRANTS Samsung’s 4 motion to compel production of the HTC settlement agreement. 5 6 To seek discovery after the deadlines set in the scheduling order, Samsung must show good cause pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). The focus of the good cause inquiry in the Rule 16(b) 7 8 9 context is the “diligence of the party seeking the modification,” in particular whether the party was “diligent in assisting the [c]ourt to create a workable schedule at the outset of litigation,” whether United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 “the scheduling order imposes deadlines that have become unworkable notwithstanding its diligent 11 efforts to comply” and whether the party was “diligent in seeking the amendment once it became 12 apparent that extensions were necessary.” 3 The party seeking a motion to compel pursuant to Fed. 13 14 R. Civ. P. 37(a) also must show that its request satisfies the relevancy standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b). 4 Relevancy under Rule 26(b) is broadly defined, “although it is not without ultimate and 15 16 necessary boundaries.” 5 The court first addresses Samsung’s motion to compel production of the settlement 17 18 agreement and then turns to the motion to compel depositions from Apple’s experts. 19 A. 20 21 HTC Settlement Agreement On November 11, 2012, Apple announced that it had reached a settlement agreement in its various patent disputes with HTC, and as part of the agreement, Apple and HTC had entered a 22 23 24 3 25 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). 26 4 27 5 28 See Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 610 (N.D. Cal. 1995). See Gonzales v. Google Inc., 234 F.R.D. 674, 680 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (internal citations and quotations omitted). 2 Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG) ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL 1 “broad ten-year licensing agreement.” 6 Samsung seeks discovery of the settlement agreement to 2 support its opposition to Apple’s permanent injunction motion. According to Samsung, the 3 settlement agreement undermines Apple’s assertion that an injunction is a more appropriate remedy 4 than money damages. 7 Apple responds that it is willing to provide the settlement agreement but 5 notes that HTC objects to the production of the agreement’s financial terms because of their 6 competitive value. 8 7 At the hearing, Samsung explained that it needs an unredacted version of the settlement 8 9 agreement because the financial terms are probative of arguments Samsung raises in its opposition United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 to Apple’s permanent injunction motion. Despite Samsung’s assertions that consumers’ 11 willingness to pay a premium for patented features of a product is not relevant to a consumer 12 demand inquiry, it argues that to the degree Apple prevails on the contrary argument, 9 the licensing 13 14 fees with HTC are relevant to the degree of consumer demand for Apple’s patented features. Samsung also asserts that the financial terms support its argument that a royalty is a more suitable 15 16 alternative to a permanent injunction. HTC’s only response is that the potential probative value of the terms is outweighed by the 17 18 risk to HTC from disclosure of the terms. 19 The court is not persuaded by HTC’s argument. Although the court is more than a little 20 skeptical of Samsung’s arguments regarding the financial terms, Rule 26 supplies a broad standard 21 of relevance. 10 Many third parties to this case have had their licensing agreements disclosed – 22 without any redaction of financial terms – subject to an Attorneys-Eyes-Only designation because 23 24 6 See Docket No. 2144-3. 25 7 See Docket No. 2144 (citing Docket No. 2054 at 7). 26 8 See Docket No. 2151. 27 9 See, e.g., Docket No. 2130 (Hauser Declaration). 28 10 See Gonzales, 234 F.R.D. at 680. 3 Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG) ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL 1 the confidential financial terms were clearly relevant to the dispute between Apple and Samsung. 11 2 HTC is not entitled to special treatment, especially when it has recognized the general sufficiency 3 of the protective order and the integrity of Samsung’s outside counsel. 4 5 6 Accordingly, Samsung’s motion to compel production of an unredacted version of the settlement agreement is GRANTED. Apple shall produce the unredacted document without delay subject to an Attorneys-Eyes-Only designation under the protective order already in place in this 7 8 9 case. B. Samsung moves to compel further depositions of Dr. Karan Singh (“Singh”), Dr. John R. 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California Expert Depositions 11 Hauser (“Hauser”), and Marylee Robinson (“Robinson”) on the grounds that the “these experts 12 offer new, previously undisclosed opinions that Samsung has not had an opportunity to test through 13 deposition.” 12 According to Samsung, Singh “offers an entirely new theory of infringement of the 14 ‘915 Patent”; Hauser provides “new opinions to support Apple’s claim of irreparable harm”; and 15 16 Robinson “offers new opinions and calculations in support of Apple’s requests for” monetary 17 damages. 13 Samsung argues that it has shown good cause to modify the discovery deadlines set in 18 the scheduling order because it “immediately requested the discovery,” and the information that it 19 seeks is “central to Samsung’s response to Apple’s request for an injunction and damages.” 14 20 Samsung further argues that “[a]llowing these depositions will ensure that a full record is 21 developed.” 15 22 23 24 11 See, e.g., Docket No. 1414 (listing trial exhibits with unredacted third-party financial terms). 25 12 See Docket No. 2151. 26 13 See id. 27 14 See id. 28 15 See id. 4 Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG) ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL Apple responds that Samsung’s request was not immediate and that, in fact, a week passed 1 2 between the date Apple filed its reply and the date Samsung moved to compel the depositions. 16 3 Apple further responds that even if the request had been timely, Samsung has not justified a new 4 round of depositions. 17 5 6 7 8 9 Apple contends that the three experts Samsung seeks to depose did not offer “new” evidence but merely responded to Samsung’s new experts and evidence in its opposition to the permanent injunction. 18 According to Apple, Hauser’s declaration was offered only to rebut a new argument from Samsung regarding consumer demand for patented features; Robinson’s declaration United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 was offered only as a supplemental calculation of damages based on information Samsung 11 dilatorily disclosed; and Singh’s declaration serves only to rebut Samsung’s argument that it had 12 “implemented non-infringing design-arounds.” 19 Apple asserts that Samsung has had ample 13 opportunity to depose or cross-examine each of the three experts at earlier stages of the trial. 14 Apple’s assertion conflates two different standards. Although the declarations of its experts 15 16 may not be “new” such that they are not improperly raised in the reply, 20 the experts’ assertions are 17 “new” to Samsung because Apple had not raised them earlier in the proceedings. As this court 18 explained during the parties’ last round of deposition requests, at the heart of these discovery 19 disputes is Apple’s motion for a permanent injunction, which is an “‘extraordinary remedy’ that 20 should be evaluated ‘in light of the full available record.’” 21 Permitting Samsung to explore in 21 22 16 See Docket No. 2149-1. 17 See id. 18 See id. 19 See id. 23 24 25 26 20 27 See Edwards v. Toys “R” Us, 527 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1205 n.31 (C.D. Cal. 2007); cf. Terrell v. Contra Costa Cnty., 232 Fed. Appx. 626, 629 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007). 28 21 See Docket No. 2105 (quoting Docket No. 2093). 5 Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG) ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL 1 2 depositions new assertions by Apple’s experts allows full development of the record in advance of the parties’ hearing before Judge Koh. Apple also suggests Samsung was not diligent in moving for the depositions. Samsung 3 4 brought this motion within one week of the date Apple filed its reply with the declarations at 5 issue. 22 Although Apple suggests that one week shows a lack of diligence, a careful review of the 6 meet-and-confer emails shows that Samsung raised the issue with Apple only three days after 7 8 9 Apple filed its reply, and that the parties engaged in negotiations regarding the depositions and expedited briefing. 23 The emails show that Samsung was diligent in pursuing recourse after United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 Apple’s reply was filed. The emails also reflect that Apple participated in determining the dates 11 for the motion, so it can hardly claim now to be prejudiced by a late filing date. 12 13 Because Samsung was diligent in seeking the amendment to the scheduling order and because the court believes a full record is important to this case, Samsung’s motion to compel 14 depositions of the three experts is GRANTED. 15 As an alternative to its primary position, Apple asks that if Samsung’s motion for 16 17 depositions is granted, it should be permitted to take depositions of Dr. R. Sukumar and Corey 18 Kerstetter because they are the Samsung declarants to whom Hauser and Robinson responded. 19 Again, in light of the need for a full record and the well-recognized legal doctrine of “what is sauce 20 for the goose is sauce for the gander,” the court will permit Apple its additional deposition requests 21 as well. 22 Samsung also seeks to file a supplemental brief addressing the depositions it plans to take. 23 24 25 Apple opposes, but likewise seeks a supplemental brief if Samsung’s motion is granted. As the court stated in its October 29, 2012 order – and as it repeats here – because they relate to matters 26 27 22 See Docket No. 2141. 28 23 See Docket No. 2141 Ex. 1. 6 Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG) ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS TO COMPEL 1 before Judge Koh, page limits, supplemental briefing, and deadlines are not issues for the 2 undersigned to determine. Judge Koh has set a briefing schedule and the court advises the parties 3 to heed her directions regarding briefing for the preliminary injunction motion. 4 5 6 Samsung finally proposes that the court order the depositions at issue be taken by November 27, 2012, so that it may have time to file its requested supplemental brief. Because Samsung does not yet have leave to file a supplemental brief and because the court finds November 7 8 9 27 to be a rather ambitious deadline to meet in light of the Thanksgiving holiday and the geographic spread of the witnesses, the court sets the deadline for the depositions for November United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 29, 2012. At a minimum, the parties will have a week to assimilate the new information before 11 their hearing with Judge Koh. Accordingly, 12 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than November 29, 2012, Apple shall produce Dr. John Hauser, Marylee Robinson, and Dr. Karan Singh for depositions of no longer than three 14 hours. 15 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than November 29, 2012, Samsung shall produce 17 Corey Kerstetter and Dr. R. Sukumar for depositions of no longer than three hours. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 21 Dated: November _____, 2012 20 _________________________________ PAUL S. GREWAL United States Magistrate Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG) ORDER GRANTING SAMSUNG’S MOTIONS 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?