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

Filing 473

RESPONSE (re 464 MOTION to Shorten Time Apple's Motion to Shorten Time for Briefing and Hearing on Apple's Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Things ) filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration Declaration of Melissa N. Chan, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to the Chan Declaration, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit 2 to the Chan Declaration, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit 3 to the Chan Declaration, # 5 Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 12/9/2011)

Download PDF
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151) 2 50 California Street, 22nd Floor 3 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 4 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 5 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129) 6 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603) th 7 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5 Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065 8 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 9 Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417) 10 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor 11 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 12 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 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. 4:11-cv-01846-LHK 18 SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING ON APPLE'S MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND THINGS 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 Date: Time: Place: Judge: December 16, 2011 10:00 a.m. Courtroom 5, 4th Floor Hon. Paul S. Grewal 25 26 27 28 Case No. 4:11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE'S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF 1 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 2 Apple fails to demonstrate any urgency that necessitates a shortened schedule here. Its 3 motion is based entirely on an arbitrary and impossible deadline—December 15, 20111—that 4 Apple suddenly set for Samsung’s production of several broad categories of documents about a 5 week ago. 6 Prior to filing its motion to compel, Apple refused to meet and confer regarding the 7 grounds for its urgency, citing baseless reasons and claiming that it did not have to justify its 8 position. (Chan Decl. ¶ 3.) When Samsung stated it would make a good-faith effort to expedite 9 and produce the requested documents by the requested deadline, Apple claimed Samsung also 10 needed to provide a detailed audit report of its search efforts. (Id.) Even when Samsung agreed to 11 make a substantial production of all the requested materials, on a rolling basis, by January 6 (Chan 12 Decl., Ex. 1.), Apple never explained why the three weeks’ difference mattered and filed its 13 motion even though it had not complied with the lead counsel meet-and-confer requirement. 14 Apple knew a motion to compel on these materials right now was unnecessary and 15 unreasonable. And it knew its arbitrary December 15 demand would likely not survive a lead 16 counsel meet and confer, so it skipped the rules to file its baseless motion. There is no legitimate 17 dispute here. Samsung has already agreed to produce these materials on an expedited schedule 18 that will get Apple the documents in plenty of time for their use at depositions, and Apple cites no 19 other reason why it wants or needs an expedited schedule. There is no reason to grant Apple’s 20 motion to shorten time. 21 ARGUMENT 22 I. APPLE REFUSES TO CONDUCT AN IN-PERSON MEET AND CONFER 23 Apple prematurely seeks to file a motion to compel immediate production of documents, 24 but has refused to engage in any meaningful meet and confer regarding the urgency of such 25 documents. For many of the requests for technical documents cited in Apple’s motion to compel, 26 the parties have never had the opportunity to discuss the scope and breadth of such requests, much 27 1 28 In its motion, Apple now seeks such documents by December 23, 2011. Case No. 4:11-cv-01846-LHK -1SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF 1 less through lead counsel. In fact, Apple has clearly stated that it was not required to so meet and 2 confer—“Apple is not required to justify its reasons for needing certain categories of documents 3 on an expedited basis” (Chan Decl. ¶ 3)—and thus has refused to provide further explanation for 4 its alleged expedited need. Samsung cited the Court's rules and made its lead counsel available for 5 an in-person meet and confer as soon as he is available, on December 19, 2011.2 (Dkt. No. 436-4.) 6 Even considering Apple’s arguments in its motion for leave from the lead counsel in-person meet 7 and confer requirement, Apple has offered no reason why it failed to conduct any kind of meet and 8 confer between lead counsel before filing its motion. 9 II. APPLE CAN IDENTIFY NO PREJUDICE, SINCE SAMSUNG HAS AGREED TO 10 PRODUCE THE REQUESTED MATERIALS BY JANUARY 6, 2012 11 Apple's Motion to Shorten Time merely states that the documents it seeks are "the core of 12 Apple’s case, and it is critical that Apple receive them well before January 2012," but it does not 13 explain why a production by January 6, 2012 would cause it any harm. (D.N. 464 at 2.) In fact, 14 Apple has not made any showing of prejudice that would result if Samsung were unable to 15 practically complete production by December 15, 2011 or Apple's newly proposed deadline of 16 December 23, 2011, much less articulated any reason it would be prejudiced unless this motion for 17 shortened time is granted. Apple also fails to cite any reason why the regular briefing schedule 18 would be insufficient to address their concerns, especially since Samsung has already agreed to 19 produce responsive documents that may moot Apple’s motion, and Apple could discuss any 20 perceived deficiencies at a hearing in January. 21 What Apple cites as urgent is simply not so. Apple cites the fact that it has noticed the 22 depositions of dozens of Samsung’s designers and other personnel, and hopes to take them in 23 January 2012. (D.N. 464 at 2.) However, the parties have yet to determine a schedule or location 24 for these depositions, and Apple provides no reason why nearly the entirety of Samsung’s 25 2 Mr. Verhoeven will be in Washington, D.C. conducting a trial until December 19. To accommodate Apple, Samsung offered to stipulate to a proposal seeking relief from the in-person 27 lead counsel requirement so long as it would apply to both sides, so that it too could move forward on pending discovery issues, but Apple refused. (Dkt. No. 463-6.) 28 26 Case No. 4:11-cv-01846-LHK -2SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF 1 production of the documents must occur by December 23, 2011, or why Samsung’s agreement to 2 produce source code and design and marketing documents by January 6, 2012 results in any harm. 3 While parties must have reasonable time to prepare for depositions, Apple has not identified any 4 reason why it would be prejudiced by Samsung's proposals or by the Court's regular briefing 5 schedule, and as such, its motion must be denied. Competitive Techs., Inc. v. Fujitsu Ltd., 333 F. 6 Supp. 2d 858, 862 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (Motion to Shorten Time moot if court's normal briefing 7 schedule does not prejudice a party).3 8 CONCLUSION 9 For the foregoing reasons, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court deny Apple’s 10 Motion for Shortened Time. In the alternative, Samsung requests the Court set the date for 11 Samsung's opposition as December 14, 2011, with no reply, and the hearing for December 16, 12 2011. 13 DATED: December 9, 2011 14 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 15 By /s/ Victoria F. Maroulis Charles K. Verhoeven Kevin P.B. Johnson Victoria F. Maroulis Michael T. Zeller Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3 Tellingly, when Samsung asked Apple to agree to the production of similar categories of 27 documents by the same deadline, Apple gave no conclusive agreement to do so. Apple wants the Court to set an arbitrary deadline—one that Apple believes should only apply to Samsung. 28 Case No. 4:11-cv-01846-LHK -3SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF

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?