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

Filing 253

MOTION to Expedite Briefing and Hearing on Apple's Motion to Compel filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Proposed Order)(Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 9/23/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
[e-mail]
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415.268.7522
Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12
13

APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

14
15
16
17
18
19

v.
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.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
la- 1141653CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

Case No.

4:11-cv-01846-LHK

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
SHORTEN TIME FOR BRIEFING
AND HEARING ON
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
COMPEL
Date: September 23, 2011
Time: 3:00 p.m.
Courtroom: 5, 4th Floor
Honorable Paul S. Grewal

1

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

2
3

TO DEFENDANTS AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

4

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff Apple Inc. hereby moves the Court, pursuant to

5

Civil Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-3, to shorten time for briefing and hearing on its accompanying

6

Motion to Compel Samsung to Produce Documents and Provide Responsive Answers to

7

Propounded Discovery (“Motion to Compel”).
This motion is based on this notice of motion and supporting memorandum of points and

8
9

authorities; the supporting Declaration of Wesley E. Overson; and such other written or oral

10

argument as may be presented at or before the time this motion is taken under submission by the

11

Court.

12
13

Dated: September 22, 2011

14
15
16

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY
MICHAEL A. JACOBS
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR
JASON R. BARTLETT
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Michael A. Jacobs
MICHAEL A. JACOBS

17
18

Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
la- 1141653CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

2

1

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

2

In accordance with Civil Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-3, Plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”) moves

3

the Court to shorten time for the briefing and hearing schedule for its Motion to Compel Samsung

4

to Produce Documents and Provide Responsive Answers to Propounded Discovery (“Motion to

5

Compel”). Specifically, Apple requests that:

6

1)

Samsung’s opposition to the Motion to Compel be filed no later than 12:00 p.m.
on Monday, September 26, 2011;

7
8

2)

Apple’s reply be filed by 12:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 27, 2011; and

9

3)

The hearing be set for September 28, 2011, or as soon thereafter as the matter may

10

be heard.

11

The shortened briefing and hearing schedule is necessary because absent such a schedule, Apple

12

will be forced to file its Reply in Support of its Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (“PI Motion,”

13

D.N. 86) on September 30, 2011 without the benefit of the discovery this Court contemplated in

14

its order of July 18, 2011. (See Order Setting Briefing and Hearing Schedule for Motion for

15

Preliminary Injunction, D.N. 115.) Additionally, Apple would almost certainly not receive the

16

discovery it seeks before the Preliminary Injunction hearing, which is set for October 13.

17

The PI Motion involves the design of four Samsung products. Apple asserts that Samsung

18

copied its designs. The Motion to Compel seeks documents relating to the development of the

19

designs of the accused products. As set forth in the Motion to Compel, both sides agree that these

20

documents are relevant to the issues in the Preliminary Injunction motion and hearing.

21

Given the schedule for the Preliminary Injunction hearing, Apple cannot wait for a

22

hearing under the normal Court rules. The earliest the Court could adjudicate Apple’s Motion to

23

Compel under an ordinary briefing and hearing schedule would be after the PI Motion hearing. A

24

normal schedule would thus deprive Apple of the discovery to which it is entitled under this

25

Court’s July 18 Order.

26

Samsung has suggested that a hearing on October 4, 2011 would be sufficient. However,

27

such a hearing would fall four days after the due date for Apple’s Reply in Support of the PI

28

Motion. Thus, Apple would have to file its Reply without knowing whether it will receive the
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
la- 1141653CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

documents in question or whether any sanction applies. Moreover, such a hearing would fall just
nine days before the PI hearing. If the Court grants the Motion to Compel on October 4,
Samsung will likely claim that it cannot produce documents in time for the hearing. In addition,
the documents will likely be in Korean, and Apple will need time to review them. A ruling on
October 4 will thus be too late, and will deprive Apple of a key source of relevant evidence for its
PI Motion.
Apple filed the Motion to Compel at its earliest opportunity. Last Friday and Saturday,
almost a week after its Court-imposed deadline to produce relevant documents, Samsung doubled
its total production to date by serving Apple with approximately 15,000 pages of documents.
(See generally Declaration of Minn Chung in Support of Apple’s Motion to Compel, lodged
under seal with the Court on September 21, 2011.) Immediately upon receipt of this late
production, Apple conducted an expedited review to determine the production’s contents. (See
Declaration of Wesley E. Overson in Support of Apple’s Motion to Shorten Time for Briefing
and Hearing on Apple’s Motion to Compel (“Overson Decl.”) at ¶ 3, filed concurrently herewith.)
The review was completed on Tuesday, and it revealed that Samsung’s production was woefully
deficient. (Id.) On Tuesday evening, Apple filed its Motion to Compel. (Id. at ¶ 4.)
Apple attempted to meet and confer with Samsung to avoid burdening the Court with this
administrative motion, but Samsung refused any briefing schedule that would allow Apple’s
motion to be heard before Apple’s Reply in support of the PI motion is due. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-10.)
Adopting Samsung’s proposal will not provide Apple with sufficient time prior to the PI Hearing
to use any supplemental production materials.

22
23
24

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Apple respectfully requests that the Court grant Apple’s
Motion to Shorten Time for Briefing and Hearing on Apple’s Motion to Compel.

25
26
27
28
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
la- 1141653CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

2

1

Dated: September 22, 2011

2
3

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY
MICHAEL A. JACOBS
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR
JASON R. BARTLETT
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

4
5

By: /s/ Michael A. Jacobs
MICHAEL A. JACOBS

6

Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
la- 1141653CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK

3

1
2
3
4
5

ECF ATTESTATION
I, JASON R. BARTLETT, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to
file the following document: PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR BRIEFING
AND HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION to COMPEL. In compliance with General Order
45, X.B., I hereby attest that Michael Jacobs has concurred in this filing.

6
7

Dated: September 22, 2011

8

JASON R. BARTLETT
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
By: /s/ Jason R. Bartlett
JASON R. BARTLETT

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
la- 1141653CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK