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

Filing 480

MOTION Temporary Relief Regarding Lead Counsel Meet and Confer Requirement filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. Responses due by 12/16/2011. (Attachments: #1 Hutnyan Declaration, *** #2 Exhibit 1 to Hutnyan Declaration FILED IN ERROR. DOCUMENT LOCKED. DOCUMENT TO BE REFILED LATER. *** )(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 12/12/2011) Modified on 12/13/2011 (ewn, COURT STAFF).

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)
[e-mail]
2
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
5

Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129
[e-mail]
Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
6
[e-mail]
555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
7
Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139
[phone]
8 Telephone:
Facsimile:
[phone]
9
10

Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417)
[e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
11
Los Angeles, California 90017
12 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
13
14 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
15 INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

19
20 APPLE INC., a California corporation,

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

21

ADMINISTRATIVE
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY
RELIEF REGARDING LEAD
COUNSEL MEET AND CONFER
REQUIREMENT

22

Plaintiff,
vs.

23 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
24 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
25 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
26
Defendant.
27
28
02198.51855/4504039.2

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1

NOTICE OF MOTION

2

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

3

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 12, 2011 at 10:00 a.m., or as soon as the

4 matter may be heard by the Honorable Paul S. Grewal in Courtroom 5, United States District
5 Court for the Northern District of California, Robert F. Peckham Federal Building, 280 South 1st
6 Street, San Jose, CA 95113, Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
7 America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) shall
8 and hereby do move the Court seeking relief from the Court's In-Person Meet and Confer
9 Requirement. This motion is based on this notice of motion and supporting memorandum of
10 points and authorities; the supporting declarations of Diane C. Hutnyanand such other written or
11 oral argument as may be presented at or before the time this motion is taken under submission by
12 the Court.
13
14

RELIEF REQUESTED
Samsung seeks an order seeking relief from the lead counsel in-person meet and confer

15 requirement for the purpose of its concurrently filed Motion(s) to Compel.
16
17 December 12, 2011
18

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

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

26
27
28
02198.51855/4504039.2

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1

In accordance with Northern District of California Local Rule 7-11, Samsung submits this

2 Administrative Motion for Relief Regarding the In-Person Lead Counsel Meet and Confer
3 Requirement (the "Meet and Confer Requirement") as set forth in the Court’s Minute Order and
4 Case Management Order. (D.N.187).
5
6

ARGUMENT
Samsung has good cause to seek relief. Apple's refusal to provide its lead counsel for a

7 meet and confer necessitates that the Court intervene and grant the instant motion, seeking relief
8 from the Meet and Confer Requirement for Samsung's concurrently filed Motions to Compel.
9

After weeks of negotiating discovery disputes on both sides, Samsung proposed terms for a

10 joint motion seeking relief for both parties from the in-person aspect of the Meet and Confer
11 Requirement. (Hutnyan Decl., ¶ 3.. ). Although Samsung believed the issues raised by Apple’s
12 then-threatened motion were already resolved – and that Apple’s motion was baseless – it was
13 willing to cooperate with Apple so long as it would receive equal treatment, and it proposed a
14 stipulation to accomplish that. Indeed, Samsung would have much preferred to make one joint
15 motion to avoid having to burden the Court with two similar requests in two days. But without
16 notifying Samsung, on December 09, 2011, through a middle-of-the-night filing, Apple sought
17 and received leave from the “in-person” meet and confer requirement just for itself, so as to seize
18 an unfair, unilateral advantage. (D.N.467,464, and 477; ; Hutnyan Decl., ¶ 3.).
19

Relief from the Meet and Confer Requirement for the issues raised in Samsung’s motions

20 to compel is necessary to resolve Samsung's discovery issues to avoid continued and escalating
21 prejudice to Samsung. Lead counsels for both parties acknowledge that their busy schedules make
22 in-person meet and confer on the issues impractical. (Hutnyan Decl., ¶¶ 2, 4).). Samsung
23 requested dates from Apple for a lead-counsel meet and confer as early as November 20, 2011 but
24 Apple never responded. Samsung renewed its request on December 10, seeking at least a
25 telephonic lead counsel meet and confer since Apple’s lead counsel is out of the country until
26 December 27, but Apple has refused to have any lead counsel meet and confer, telephonic or
27 otherwise, until December 13, after the date Samsung’s motions needed to be filed to match the
28 hearing schedule set by the Court on Apple’s motion. (Hutnyan Decl., ¶ 4.).
02198.51855/4504039.2

-2-

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1

Samsung can wait no longer for Apple to provide the requested documents and other

2 information, especially after learning on December 7 that Apple, despite prior promises, has not
3 expedited production of the requested items despite weeks of meeting and conferring, and that it
4 regards the items Samsung has been requesting as "peripheral" evidence that it may, or may not,
5 produce on December 15.1 Samsung seeks specific documents, tangibles and other information
6 needed now for claim construction briefing, invalidity contentions and significant follow-on
7 discovery. Samsung will be prejudiced if Apple continues delaying production, or if it "dumps"
8 these documents on Samsung one week prior to close of claim construction briefing.
9

Samsung’s first motion seeks relief in three narrow areas:

10 (1)

documents and source code needed immediately for claim construction briefing with

11

respect to of Apple’s asserted utility patents and which must be produced pursuant to

12

Patent Local Rule 3-4;

13 (2)

documents, tangibles and other information Apple has been withholding that are key to the

14

validity of Apple’s asserted design patents that have prevented Samsung from being able to

15

question Apple’s witnesses in these key areas, and from being able to conduct follow-on

16

discovery; and

17 (3)

transcripts of prior testimony of Apple witnesses where they testified in their capacity as

18

Apple employees, needed to prevent Samsung from having to take any more depositions

19

without the benefit of this prior, relevant testimony.

20

Samsung's second motion seeks to compel Apple to allow Samsung's expert witness to

21

view documents produced by Apple in this litigation. Apple refuses to allow him access to any

22

documents on the premise that he has a multi-touch technology business even though he is a

23

design expert, is not providing any opinions with respect to the utility patents, and is thus not

24

being given documents or other confidential information pertaining to multi-touch technology.

25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4504039.2

1

Apple has only committed that it will either produce certain items by that date, or it will
provide a report on that date of what remains to be done to search and produce those items.

-3-

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK

1

Samsung needs immediate relief from the Meet and Confer Requirement, and has

2

demonstrated good cause for such relief. Without the Court's intervention, Apple will continue to

3

improperly block Samsung’s expert from being able to analyze the relevant facts and prepare his

4

report, and Samsung will continue to be prejudiced by Apple’s refusal to produce information

5

central to Samsung’s case, within a timeframe allowing it to be used effectively, or used at all,

6

based only on its unilateral opinion that this important evidence may be backburnered because it

7

is “peripheral.”

8
9

CONCLUSION
Samsung has shown good cause why the Court should grant this Motion. For the

10

foregoing reasons, Samsung respectfully requests relief from the Court’s Meet and Confer

11

Requirement for the limited purposes of Samsung's concurrently filed Motions to Compel.

12
13 DATED: December 12, 2011

Respectfully submitted,

14

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

15
16
17
18
19
20
21

By/s/ 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

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4504039.2

-4-

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK