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

Filing 447

ORDER RE: DECEMBER 2, 2011 DISCOVERY DISPUTE, re #444 Discovery Hearing,. Signed by Judge Paul S. Grewal on 12/2/2011. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/2/2011)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN JOSE DIVISION

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

APPLE INC.,

)
)
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.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE DECEMBER 2, 2011
DISCOVERY DISPUTE

Defendants.
Earlier today, Plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”) brought before the court a discovery dispute
regarding Apple’s inspection of a public prior art system referenced by Defendants Samsung

21
Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications
22
23

America, LLC (collectively, "Samsung"). The parties appeared for hearing telephonically. Apple

24

complains that Samsung’s counsel has sought to prevent Apple from leaving the inspection site

25

with an inspection video, and further insisted Apple provide a copy of the video to Samsung.

26

Samsung concedes that Apple’s video of the inspection constitutes work-product belonging to

27

Apple, but argues that Apple previously had imposed similar restrictions on Samsung following

28
1
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE

1
2

several inspections conducted by Samsung. Samsung emphasizes the need for reciprocal guidelines
to govern prior art inspections.
The court rules as follows:

3
4

1. The video at issue is work-product that Apple may retain without having to disclose any
portion thereof to Samsung.

5

2. Consistent inspection standards shall apply to both parties moving forward, whereby

6
7

a. a party’s inspection and/or the fruits thereof may be protected as work-product;1 and

8

b. the inspection of proprietary systems as opposed to public prior art shall be subject
to the protections of the protective order in this case.

9

3. If a party intends to rely on any part of the inspection work-product, it shall comply with
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 regarding production of that material.

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12

Dated: December 2, 2011

13
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

This is consistent with the court’s previous order requiring the parties to agree upon a third-party
vendor to oversee a secure escrow process for the production and inspection of native CAD files.
See Docket No. 233.
2
Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER RE DISCOVERY DISPUTE