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

Filing 495

REPLY (re #481 MOTION to Shorten Time for Briefing and Hearing ) Reply in Support of Samsung's Motion to Shorten Time filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 12/13/2011)

Download PDF
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)  50 California Street, 22nd Floor  San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600  Facsimile: (415) 875-6700  Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)  Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)  555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065  Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100  Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)  865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor  Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000  Facsimile: (213) 443-3100  Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS  AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC   UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION  APPLE INC., a California corporation, CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK  SAMSUNG’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING  Plaintiff, vs.  SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a Korean business entity; SAMSUNG  ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; SAMSUNG  TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,  Defendants.     02198.51855/4507096.1 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG’S REPLY ISO MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME 1 Apple’s opposition to Samsung’s motion to shorten time contradicts Apple’s own motion 2 to shorten time. Apple’s apparent stance is that it should be entitled to press its case on an 3 expedited basis while Samsung should be denied that same opportunity. The Court should reject 4 Apple’s maneuvering and hear both parties’ discovery motions at this Friday’s hearing. Doing so 5 would also further the interests of judicial economy as the parties’ disputes are overlapping in 6 several respects. 7 1. Apple Refused A Reciprocal Meet And Confer Arrangement — Apple distorts the 8 record regarding the parties’ efforts to hold a lead counsel meet and confer. Samsung’s counsel 9 could not meet in person on December 5-7, but Samsung was willing to stipulate to a telephonic 10 lead counsel meeting, if both parties could discuss their respective discovery issues. (See 11 Samsung’s Motion for Relief from the Lead Counsel Meet and Confer Requirement (Dkt No. 480) 12 at 2.) After all, Samsung had been requesting Apple’s participation in a lead counsel meet and 13 confer since November 20, with no response from Apple. Apple refused to make the stipulation, 14 apparently using this as a way to skirt the lead counsel meet and confer requirement altogether. 15 By way of contrast, Samsung was trying to make its lead counsel available, to discuss both 16 parties’ issues. 17 2. Samsung’s Motion Is Highly Relevant To Its Claim Construction Brief (Due 18 December 22) As Well As Upcoming Samsung Depositions — Apple’s response is tellingly silent 19 about the highly relevant source code it has been withholding from Samsung for weeks. That 20 source code is in Apple’s sole possession and is directly related to Samsung’s invalidity and 21 inequitable conduct defenses for the ’891 and ’002 utility patents. (See Samsung’s Motion to 22 Compel at Argument Section 6-8.) Samsung’s motion is therefore highly urgent in light of the 23 claim construction briefing due on December 22 with regard to these patents, which Apple put at 24 issue. Other of the requested documents are relevant to Samsung’s upcoming depositions of 25 Apple employees — an argument Apple itself made in seeking to expedite its own motion to 26 compel. 27 3. By Apple’s Own Admissions, The Briefing Schedule Is Not Prejudicial — Apple 28 claims it will be prejudiced by a shortened briefing schedule, but goes on to say that “it has 02198.51855/4507096.1 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -1- SAMSUNG’S REPLY ISO MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME 1 already agreed to produce nearly everything Samsung seeks.” (Apple’s Opposition (Dkt No. 2 490) at 4.) Plainly that is not a proper basis to decline to expedite a motion, because as Apple 3 knows, Samsung already agreed to substantially complete its production of the four categories of 4 documents Apple demands in its motion — yet Apple sought to expedite its motion anyway. 5 Moreover, it should be easy for Apple to respond to Samsung’s motion to compel. Indeed, Apple 6 need not even oppose the motion if it is truly open to promptly producing the documents and 7 things Samsung has been requesting for many weeks. Apple’s actions have led Samsung to 8 believe otherwise, however, necessitating Samsung’s motion. With regard to Samsung’s expert 9 Itay Sherman, Apple admits that it has long refused to allow him to view confidential documents. 10 (Apple’s Opposition (Dkt No. 490) at 3.) The Sherman dispute is therefore not new to Apple. 11 Unless Apple has changed its position on the issue, it should not be unduly burdensome for Apple 12 to reiterate its basis for taking the stance it has chosen. 13 Apple’s reasons for denying Samsung’s motion to expedite the briefing schedule are 14 unavailing. Samsung respectfully requests that the Court grant the relief it seeks in its motion to 15 shorten time for briefing and hearing on its discovery motions. (Dkt No. 481.) 16 17 DATED: December 13, 2011 18 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 19 20 21 22 23 24 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 25 26 27 28 02198.51855/4507096.1 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG’S REPLY ISO MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME -2-

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?