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

Filing 348

OPPOSITION (re 346 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Motion to Compel Apple to Produce Documents and Things ) Apple's Opposition to Samsung's Motion to Shorten Time on Motion to Compel Apple to Produce Documents and Things filed by Apple Inc.. (Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 10/31/2011) Modified text on 11/1/2011 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368) ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363) RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425) JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 10 11 WILLIAM F. LEE WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180) WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC. 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 SAN JOSE DIVISION 16 APPLE INC., a California corporation, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME ON MOTION TO COMPEL APPLE TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS AND THINGS Date: Time: Place: Judge: November 1, 2011 3:00 p.m. Courtroom 5 Hon. Paul S. Grewal Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 APPLE’S OPP. TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO SHORTEN TIME ON MOT. TO COMPEL CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3064984 1 Samsung has moved to shorten time on a motion to compel that it delivered just before 2 midnight on Friday night, October 28. Samsung requests that Apple’s opposition be due Monday, 3 October 31, 2011, at 4:00 p.m. 4 Samsung’s motion to compel is unnecessary and inconsistent with the parties’ lead 5 counsel meet and confer discussions on Thursday, and plainly a reaction to Apple’s motion for a 6 protective order filed Thursday morning. As of earlier in the day Friday, the parties had initiated 7 steps based on meet and confer discussions that appeared to satisfy both parties regarding the 8 issues raised by Samsung’s motion. Apple agreed to provide all of the requested items that it 9 could locate and agreed to describe its search in an interrogatory response to be delivered on 10 11 shortened time. Since then, Apple has continued to search for and make available materials that would be 12 responsive to Samsung’s requests, including over the weekend, when Apple made additional 13 items available for Samsung to inspect at Morrison & Foerster offices. That inspection occurred 14 Sunday at 1:00 pm in Morrison & Foerster’s Palo Alto office. 15 Apple is also preparing a response that explains its search and these events. There is no 16 need for a motion, let alone a request to shorten time, and Samsung’s request should be denied. 17 If, however, the Court believes that the request to shorten time should be granted, Apple 18 requests that it have until 9:00 p.m. Monday to file its opposition and until 8:00 a.m. (or whatever 19 hour in the morning the Court would request) on Tuesday to lodge its opposition and supporting 20 papers. Apple will provide courtesy copies of the papers being lodged directly to Chambers. The 21 additional time is necessary so that Apple can gather and submit complete and accurate 22 responsive information. 23 Dated: October 31, 2011 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 24 25 26 27 By: /s/ Michael A. Jacobs Michael A. Jacobs Attorneys for Plaintiff APPLE INC. 28 APPLE’S OPP. TO SAMSUNG’S MOT. TO SHORTEN TIME ON MOT. TO COMPEL CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3064984 1

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?