Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
554
MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Samsung's Motion To Extend Time For Compliance With Certain Deadlines Set By The Court's Order (Dkt No. 537) filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Hankil Kang, #2 Proposed Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 12/29/2011)
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com
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)
kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com
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)
michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com
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 MOTION TO EXTEND
TIME FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
CERTAIN DEADLINES SET BY THE
COURT'S DECEMBER 22, 2011 ORDER
PURSUANT TO L.R. 6-1 AND 6-3
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.
02198.51855/4527531.3
PLAPL
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S ORDER
1
Pursuant to Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-3, Samsung hereby moves the Court to extend the
2 period for compliance with certain deadlines set by the Court’s December 22, 2011 Order (Dkt.
3 No. 537). Despite its ongoing productions and its herculean efforts to collect, process and
4 produce a substantial amount of additional documents in a nine-day period over the winter
5 holidays as required by the Court’s Order, Samsung has now confirmed that full compliance by
6 the December 31 deadline will be physically impossible with respect to a few document sub7 categories. Samsung therefore respectfully requests a short extension of that deadline to January
8 9, 2011 – an extension that will not impact the case calendar nor prejudice Apple in any way.
9
10
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On December 8, 2011 Plaintiff Apple, Inc. ("Apple") filed a Motion to Compel Production
11 of Documents and Things. (Dkt. No. 467). On December 22, 2011, the Court issued an Order
12 Granting-in-Part Plaintiff's Motion to Compel.
(Dkt. No. 537). The Court ordered Samsung to
13 produce four broad categories of documents by December 31, 2011. (Id.)
14
Both before and after the Court issued the Order, Samsung has been involved in an
15 immense effort to collect and complete production of all documents subject to the Court's Order.
16 (Declaration of Hankil Kang (filed herewith), ¶ 4.)
Given the massive volume of data that had to
17 be collected pursuant to the Order, and the physical limitations on how much Samsung’s current e18 discovery vendor could process in such a short period of time (nine days over the holiday period),
19 Samsung has engaged an additional discovery vendor to assist in collecting and processing the
20 requested documents.
(Id.) This new e-discovery vendor has had to obtain additional servers to
21 process the volume of data required by the Court’s Order, and is processing the data at data centers
22 in three different countries in an effort to expedite the production of these documents to the
23 greatest extent possible.
(Id.) Samsung also has directed its outside counsel to hire additional
24 attorneys to assist in the expedited review process, given the amount of data involved and the
25 limited availability of certain personnel over this nine-day holiday period.
(Id.)
Both Samsung
26 and its outside counsel have worked straight through the holidays, including on Christmas Eve and
27 Christmas Day, in Samsung’s attempt to meet the Court’s deadlines.
(Id.)
Samsung also has
28 had to contact various custodians at their homes over the holidays in order to conduct additional
02198.51855/4527531.3
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-1SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S ORDER
1 document collection interviews.
(Id.)
Further, Samsung representatives have personally
2 couriered hard drives with data from Korea to the United States during this holiday period, in
3 order to deliver the data to the relevant personnel as quickly as possible.
4
(Id.)
Samsung anticipates being able to comply in full with two of the four categories of
5 documents referenced in the Court’s December 22 Order by the December 31 deadline, and to
6 comply in part with the other two categories.
Despite its extensive efforts, however, the sheer
7 breadth of Apple's requests makes it impossible for Samsung to complete production of all
8 portions of the latter two categories of responsive documents by December 31, 2011.
(Id. ¶ 5.)
9 Specifically, based on Samsung’s e-discovery vendor’s current estimates, for the portion of item 2
10 of the Court’s Order referencing designer emails, while this production has already commenced
11 and is ongoing, Samsung anticipates that some design history emails for some of the relevant
12 custodians will not be complete by December 31.
(Id.) Additionally, for item 4 of the Court’s
13 order, while this production has already commenced and is ongoing, Samsung anticipates that
14 some responsive documents for some of the customer survey custodians (in particular, those
15 custodians who were discovered just this month) will not be complete by December 31. (Id.)
16 While Samsung intends to produce these documents on a rolling basis, based on its current
17 estimates Samsung believes that the production of these two subsets of documents will not be
18 completed until January 9, 2011.
19
ARGUMENT
20 I.
Despite Samsung’s Best Efforts To Comply Fully With The Court’s December 22,
21
2011 Order, Samsung Requires Additional Time To Comply With Just Two Subsets
22
Of The Many Categories Of Documents Called For By That Order.
23
Samsung has worked diligently – and literally around the clock – to expedite the collection
24 and production of documents requested by Apple and ordered produced by this Court. Well
25 before the Court’s December 22, 2011 Order, Samsung had already begun to produce source code
26 and design history documents (including emails, documents, mockups, CAD files, sketchbooks
27 and the like) relating to the Samsung accused products.
Samsung also had already collected and
28 produced documents that reference the Apple products from its designers and relevant customer
02198.51855/4527531.3
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-2SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S ORDER
1 survey custodians, in compliance with the Court’s earlier September 28, 2011 Order.
2 Nevertheless, Apple’s demands as ordered by the Court require substantial additional efforts.
3
Since the Court’s December 22, 2011 Order, despite already reaching its limits as to time
4 and resources, Samsung has redoubled its efforts.
Samsung has engaged an additional document
5 vendor (which vendor has in turn obtained additional servers in three countries on two continents),
6 and has hired additional attorneys to assist in collecting, reviewing and producing documents over
7 this holiday period.
Samsung’s counsel has worked straight through the holidays, including on
8 Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, and Samsung has worked hard to try to overcome the
9 significant barriers it has faced with the holiday vacation schedules of its employees and vendors.
10
Samsung's ongoing efforts thus far have resulted in the substantial collection and
11 production of documents – which Apple has demanded be expedited for little reason other than to
12 prompt Samsung’s production several months in advance of the close of fact discovery. Since
13 Apple filed its motion to compel, Samsung has produced nearly 40,000 pages of documents from
14 at least ten custodians.
As of this filing, Samsung believes it will be in full compliance with two
15 of the four categories of documents called for by the December 22 Order – specifically, item #1
16 regarding certain source code, and item #3 regarding certain documents referencing Apple’s
17 products – on or before the December 31 deadline.
(Dkt. No. 537).
Samsung also anticipates
18 that its production will be complete regarding most of the subcategories of design history
19 documents pursuant to item #3, such as CAD files, sketchbooks, mockups and the like.
Samsung
20 further anticipates that its production will be partially complete with respect to item #4, customer
21 survey documents referencing Apple products.
22
Nevertheless, despite these extensive efforts to comply with the Order, Samsung has
23 encountered yet additional unforeseen difficulties that have slowed the production process to the
24 point where Samsung will not be able to comply in full with certain subsets of two of the
25 categories of documents called for by the Order's December 31, 2011 deadline. The primary
26 obstacle is the sheer volume of data that Apple is seeking, and the breadth of the search terms
27 which must be used to locate responsive documents.
In many instances, individual custodians
28 possess hundreds of gigabytes of potentially responsive documents, while central files may
02198.51855/4527531.3
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-3SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S ORDER
1 contain terabytes of potentially responsive documents.
It has taken several days to even transfer
2 the data from Samsung to vendors for processing (which requires complicated decryption efforts,
3 among other things), and several more days to make the data available to outside counsel for
4 review (due to physical limits on computing time). Further complicating matters, access to
5 custodians’ files has been limited due to the holiday travel schedules of Samsung employees,
6 many of whom were out of the office before the Court issued the December 22, 2011 Order.
7
Thus, despite Samsung's diligent efforts to comply with the Court's Order, Samsung will
8 need a brief extension of the deadline for completing production of certain subsets of documents.
9 Specifically, based on Samsung’s e-discovery vendor’s current estimates, for the portion of item 2
10 of the Court’s Order referencing designer emails, while this production has already commenced
11 and is ongoing, Samsung anticipates that some design history emails for some of the relevant
12 custodians will not be complete by December 31.
(Kang Decl. ¶ 5.)
Additionally, for item 4 of
13 the Court’s order, while this production has already commenced and is ongoing, Samsung
14 anticipates that some responsive documents for some of the customer survey custodians (in
15 particular, those custodians who were discovered just this month) will not be complete by
16 December 31.
(Id.)
While Samsung intends to produce these documents on a rolling basis,
17 based on its current estimates Samsung believes that the production of these two subsets of
18 documents will not be completed until January 9, 2011.
This date represents the earliest possible
19 date by which Samsung currently believes it will be able to complete production of all documents
20 that are the subject of the Court's Order.
If Samsung is able to complete its production sooner
21 than January 9, it will do so.
22 II.
Samsung Has Sought Apple’s Stipulation, But Apple Has Refused Without
23
Explanation.
24
Yesterday, Samsung’s counsel informed counsel for Apple of the logistical impossibility
25 Samsung was facing in its attempts to complete this production by December 31, and requested
26 that Apple stipulate to a brief extension of Samsung’s December 31 deadline for just two small
27 subsets of the four large categories of documents ordered produced by that date.
Inexplicably,
28
02198.51855/4527531.3
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S ORDER
-4-
1 Apple refused Samsung’s request, despite the fact that Apple will suffer no prejudice by this brief
2 extension.
3 III.
Samsung’s Requested Extension Will Have No Impact On The Case Schedule.
4
In this motion, Samsung does not ask that the Court change any of the deadlines set for the
5 close of discovery or for trial.
(See Dkt. No. 187.) The parties have previously stipulated to
6 minor extensions of the Court’s deadlines for various depositions and briefing (see Dkt. Nos. 119,
7 125, 146, 208, 322, 443), but the schedule for the close of discovery or for the trial has not been
8 modified by stipulation or by Court order. The current requested extension also will have no
9 impact on Apple's ability to conduct any of the upcoming scheduled depositions of Samsung
10 witnesses (which begin in mid-January), as Samsung is prioritizing the productions related to
11 those deponents.
Samsung will complete these productions at least three days in advance of
12 those depositions, in compliance with the Court’s December 22 Order.
13
14
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Samsung respectfully requests that this Court extend Samsung’s
15 deadline to comply with the Court’s December 22, 2011 Order in certain respects as set forth
16 above from December 31, 2011 to January 9, 2012.
17
18 DATED: December 29, 2011
19
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
20
21
22
23
24
25
By /s/ Victoria 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
02198.51855/4527531.3
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE COURT'S ORDER
-5-
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?