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).

Download PDF
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)  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)  Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)  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)  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   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

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?