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

Filing 31

Proposed Order re #10 MOTION to Expedite Discovery [Proposed] Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite Discovery by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 5/5/2011)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
2 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
5 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
6 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
th
7 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5 Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
8 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
9
Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
10 [e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
11 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
12 Facsimile: [phone]
13 Attorneys for Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
and Samsung Telecommunications America LLC
14
15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

16

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

17 APPLE INC., a California corporation,

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

18

[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXPEDITE
DISCOVERY

19

Plaintiff,
vs.

20 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
21 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
22 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
23
Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4122865.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXPEDITE DISCOVERY

1

[PROPOSED] ORDER

2

Having considered Plaintiff Apple Inc.’s Motion to Expedite Discovery (the “Motion”), the

3 declarations cited therein, and all pleadings and other papers in support thereof; and the
4 Opposition filed by Defendants, all declarations cited therein, and all pleadings and other papers in
5 support thereof; and any further argument or evidence presented by the parties; the Court
6 concludes that good cause does not exist for Apple’s Motion. The Court therefore DENIES
7 Apple’s Motion.
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11 DATED: __________, 2011
12

The Honorable Lucy H. Koh
United States District Court Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4122865.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-1[PROPOSED] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO EXPEDITE DISCOVERY