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

Filing 285

MOTION to Shorten Time for Briefing and Hearing on #283 Samsung's Motion to Compel, filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Kassabian Declaration, #2 Proposed Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 10/1/2011) Modified on 10/3/2011 linking entry to document #283 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)  charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22nd Floor  San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600  Facsimile: (415) 875-6700  Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129) kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com  Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603) victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com  555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065  Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100  Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)  michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor  Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000  Facsimile: (213) 443-3100  Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS  AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION  APPLE INC., a California corporation, CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK  DECLARATION OF RACHEL HERRICK KASSABIAN IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING ON ITS MOTION TO COMPEL  Plaintiff, vs.  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.      Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK KASSABIAN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING ON ITS MOTION TO COMPEL ________ 1 I, Rachel Herrick Kassabian, declare: 2 1. I am a partner in the law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, 3 counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung 4 Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”). Unless otherwise indicated, I 5 have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called upon as a witness, I 6 could and would testify as follows. 7 2. On September 29, 2011, I asked counsel for Apple if Apple would agree to an 8 expedited briefing and hearing schedule on Samsung’s planned Motion to Compel Apple to 9 provide deposition dates in compliance with the Court’s Case Management Order, whereby 10 Samsung’s Motion would be heard on Tuesday, October 4, 2011 at 10 a.m. 11 counsel for Apple declined to agree to Samsung’s request. That same day, Lead counsel also met and conferred 12 in person (via video conference) on September 30, 2011, but were unable to resolve this issue. 13 3. Pursuant to L.R. 6-3(a)(5), previous time modifications in the case, whether by 14 stipulation or Court order, include the following: 15 A. 16 17 On April 26, 2011, the Court granted Apple’s motion to shorten time for briefing and hearing on its motion to expedite discovery. (Dkt No. 26.) B. On May 9, 2011, Apple and Samsung stipulated and agreed that the time for 18 Samsung to serve responsive pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(a) shall be 75 19 days after April 21, 2011. On May 10, 2011, the Court signed the 20 Stipulation and Order regarding an extension of time for Samsung to serve 21 responsive pleadings. (Dkt No. 40.) 22 C. On June 1, 2011, the Court granted in part Samsung’s request to shorten 23 time for hearing and briefing on Samsung’s Motion to Compel Reciprocal 24 Expedited Discovery. 25 26 D. (Dkt No. 59.) On July 18, 2011 the Court ordered a briefing schedule related to expedited discovery and Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction, setting dates 27 28 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -2KASSABIAN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING ON ITS MOTION TO COMPEL 1 from July 2011 through the October 13, 2011 hearing on Apple’s Motion 2 for Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt No. 115.) 3 E. On July 21, 2011, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to extend the 4 time for briefing Samsung’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel Bridges & 5 Mavrakakis, LLP. (Dkt No. 125.) 6 F. On September 1, 2011 the Court granted Samsung’s stipulated motion to 7 expedite briefing on Samsung’s Motion to Compel Apple to Produce 8 Documents and Things. 9 G. (Dkt No. 199) On September 6, 2011 the Court granted Apple’s stipulated motion to 10 extend time for Apple to respond to Samsung’s Motion to Exclude the 11 Ordinary Observer Opinions of Apple Expert Cooper Woodring. 12 210.) 13 H. 14 On September 20, 2011, the Court granted Samsung’s unopposed motion to change the hearing date on its motion to dismiss. (Dkt No. 244.) 15 I. On September 23, 2011, the Court granted Apple’s motion to shorten time to expedite briefing on Apple’s motion to compel. (Dkt No. 255.) 16 17 (Dkt No. 4. The present request to shorten the briefing and hearing schedule on Samsung’s 18 Motion to Compel will not affect the schedule of the case. 19 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San 20 Francisco, California on October 1, 2011. 21 22 /s/ Rachel Herrick Kassabian 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -3KASSABIAN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING ON ITS MOTION TO COMPEL 1 2 General Order 45 Attestation I, Victoria F. Maroulis, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to file this 3 Declaration. In compliance with General Order 45(X)(B), I hereby attest that Rachel Herrick 4 Kassabian has concurred in this filing. 5 /s/ Victoria Maroulis 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -4KASSABIAN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING ON ITS 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?