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

Filing 301

OPPOSITION to Apple's Motion to Augment the Record (submitted under seal), filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 10/12/2011) Modified on 10/13/2011 entry cannot be linked. Motion to Augment the Record not efiled (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]
 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
 [e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]
 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




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.


SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S
MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD
Date: October 13, 2011
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Place: Courtroom 8, 4th Floor
Judge: Hon. Lucy H. Koh




02198.51855/4394172.2

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD

1

On September 30, 2011, the Court issued an order stating that it would “not accept any

2 further briefing from either party” on Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction.
3 at 2.)

(Dkt No. 276

Indeed, even though Apple improperly included non-rebuttal evidence and arguments in its

4 reply brief, Samsung complied with the order, submitting a 3-page objection brief that did not
5 submit any new evidence or arguments into the record.

(Dkt No. 294.)

Nevertheless, Apple

6 seeks once again to supplement the record with even more late evidence.

While Apple tries to

7 excuse its lateness by the fact the Samsung supplemented its production after Apple’s reply, that
8 does not allow Apple to have unlimited opportunities to reargue its case.

Apple itself produced a

9 number of highly relevant documents after its discovery deadline, and even after Samsung’s
10 opposition brief deadline, including in response to Samsung’s Motion to Compel.
11 233 (Order Granting-in-Part Samsung’s Motion to Compel).)

(See Dkt No.

As just one example, Apple’s reply

12 brief relied on evidence that Apple withheld from Samsung for more than a month after Samsung
13 filed its opposition brief.
14

(See Dkt No. 294 at 3.)

Worse still, Apple seeks to augment the record with the very same type of documents that

15 it admittedly did not provide to Samsung.

Samsung timely produced tens of thousands of pages

16 of documents in just a few short weeks in response to Apple’s more than 60 requests for
17 production. These documents included over a thousand emails. Nevertheless, Apple
18 complained that Samsung had not produced enough emails from its designers, so Samsung located
19 and produced even more.

In contrast, Apple failed to even search its designers’ emails during

20 preliminary injunction discovery, claiming that the Court’s July 18, 2011 order (Dkt No. 115)
21 allowed it to narrowly tailor its search efforts in this inappropriate way despite Samsung’s
22 multiple requests for these documents.

Apple’s motion is thus not only an open violation of the

23 Court’s September 30 order, it directly contradicts Apple’s own conduct during preliminary
24 injunction discovery.
25

In addition to presenting untimely evidence, Apple has also submitted another round of

26 arguments in direct defiance of the Court’s September 30 order. The parties were expressly
27 forbidden from doing this, and for this reason Samsung will not address the new evidence and
28 arguments raised in Apple’s motion unless the Court grants it leave to file a sur-reply.
02198.51855/4394172.2

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-2SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD

1

Therefore, to the extent the Court grants the relief that Apple requests, Samsung

2 respectfully asks that the Court offer reciprocal relief to Samsung, allowing it to also augment the
3 record with newly discovered evidence, including rebuttal evidence to Apple’s improperly
4 submitted declarations in its reply brief, and to file a sur-reply.

Otherwise, Apple will have had

5 three opportunities to add evidence into the record to support its motion for a preliminary
6 injunction — two of which have come in just the last two weeks — with Samsung having had a
7 single opportunity to offer its own evidence in its August 22 opposition papers.
8 contrary to law.

Under this Circuit’s precedent, a non-movant has the right to respond to new

9 evidence allowed into the record.
10

That would be

See Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996).

Samsung therefore respectfully requests that the Court deny Apple’s motion to augment

11 the record and strike Apple’s new arguments.

In the alternative, if the Court grants Apple the

12 relief it seeks, Samsung respectfully requests leave to also augment the record with new evidence
13 and to file a sur-reply.
14
15

Respectfully submitted,

16 DATED: October 12, 2011

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

By Victoria F. Maroulis
Charles K. Verhoeven
Kevin P.B. Johnson
Victoria F. Maroulis
Michael T. Zeller
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4394172.2

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-3SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION TO AUGMENT THE RECORD