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

Filing 2790

ORDER RE: SAMSUNG'S SUBMISSION OF IN CAMERA ARGUMENTS by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying 2772 Motion to Strike ; denying 2780 Motion to Strike (psglc3S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

SAN JOSE DIVISION

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

APPLE INC., a California Corporation,

)
)
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.: 5:11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE: SAMSUNG’S
SUBMISSION OF IN CAMERA
ARGUMENTS
(Re: Docket Nos. 2757, 2772, 2780)

22
On November 17 and 18, 2013, Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) and Nokia Corporation (“Nokia”)
23
24
25

filed motions to strike the brief filed in camera on November 15, 2013 by Samsung Electronics
Co., LTD., (“Samsung”). 1 Apple and Nokia both decry the brief as an improper, ex parte

26
27
28

1

See Docket Nos. 2757, 2772, and 2780. For more details regarding substance of the original
motion and subsequent motion practice, see Docket Nos. 2374-2, 2434, 2483, 2538, 2610-2, 2622,
2624, 2633, and 2689.
1
Case No.: 5:11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE: SAMSUNG’S SUBMISSION OF IN CAMERA ARGUMENTS

1

communication. 2 They argue that without access to some version of the brief, they cannot properly

2

consider, let alone respond to, the “thrust of Samsung’s arguments,” thus depriving the court of the

3

“back-and-forth process [that] is, of course, a fundamental feature of our judicial system.” 3 In order

4

to preserve this process, say Apple and Nokia, ex parte arguments are only accepted under the

5

“rarest of circumstances,” 4 and those circumstances are not present here.

6

The court agrees. Although the court agreed to undertake an in camera review of the

7
8
9

documents over which Samsung asserted privilege, it never granted Samsung the authority to keep
any argument to the court beyond the reach of the other parties. In fact, the court explicitly

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

cautioned Samsung that it would not tolerate further undue efforts to deny Apple and Nokia’s

11

outside counsel access to the evidence at the center of this dispute.

12
13
14

In order to ensure that Apple and Nokia have a full and fair opportunity to participate in this
process, and so that the court may have the benefit of input from all sides in light of this improper
submission, Samsung shall file on the public docket redacted versions of its November 15 brief and

15
16

accompanying declarations (excluding those exhibits to the declarations over which Samsung

17

asserts attorney-client, work-product, or mediation privilege) by November 19, 2013 at 5:00 p.m.

18

Apple and Nokia may each file a brief of their own on the privilege issue no later than November

19

21, 2013 at 7:00 p.m. These briefs shall not exceed 15 pages. Having reviewed Samsung’s brief

20

and declarations, the court notes that very little in the submission merits redaction. However, given

21

Samsung’s actions in this matter so far, 5 it nonetheless feels compelled to remind Samsung’s that

22
23

2

See Docket Nos. 2772, 2780.

24

3

Docket No. 2772.

25

4

26

Docket No. 2780 (citing Ibrahim v. Dept’ of Homeland Sec., Case No. 6:12-cv-0545, 2012 WL
6652362, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 20, 2012)).

5

27
28

First, despite being ordered on October 22, 2013 to begin submitting documents "immediately,"
two days passed before Samsung submitted even one page. Second, despite a final submission
deadline of October 24, 2013, Samsung continued to produce documents three days later. Third, on
November 15, 2013, despite being permitted to defend its privilege and work product claims
2
Case No.: 5:11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE: SAMSUNG’S SUBMISSION OF IN CAMERA ARGUMENTS

1

broad assertions of plainly unprotected information will not be tolerated. If Samsung attempts

2

wholesale redactions of sections of the documents, the court will have no qualms about requiring

3

the filing of completely unredacted copies quickly thereafter.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated: November 18, 2013

6

_________________________________

7
8

PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate 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

further with an additional 15-page brief, Samsung submitted more boxes of documents, thus
bringing to a swift end the court's brief respite from the stack now consuming much of the square
footage of the court's jury room. The boxes included not only the brief but no less than 16
declarations and hundreds if not thousands of pages of attachments. Samsung also lodged its
submission in camera without any prior request for permission to do so. Fourth, and to top it all off,
on November 18, 2013, Samsung informed the court that at least one of its unauthorized
declarations was incorrect, and so it was submitting yet another declaration, at some unannounced
time in the future.
3
Case No.: 5:11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE: SAMSUNG’S SUBMISSION OF IN CAMERA ARGUMENTS