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).
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?