Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
555
MOTION to Shorten Time for Briefing and Hearing #554 Samsung's Motion to Extend Time filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Kassabian Declaration, #2 Proposed Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 12/29/2011) Modified on 12/30/2011 linking entry to document #554 (dhm, COURT STAFF).
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
DECLARATION OF RACHEL HERRICK
KASSABIAN IN SUPPORT OF
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN
TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING
ON ITS MOTION TO EXTEND TIME
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH CERTAIN
DEADLINES SET BY THE COURT'S
DECEMBER 22, 2011 ORDER
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.
02198.51855/4528196.1
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
KASSABIAN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
________
1
I, Rachel Herrick Kassabian, declare:
2
1.
I am a partner in the law firm of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP,
3 counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung
4 Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) in this action.
Unless otherwise
5 indicated, I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called upon as
6 a witness, I could and would testify as follows.
7
2.
The relief requested in Samsung’s Motion to Shorten Time is necessary in order to
8 allow the Court to decide Samsung’s Motion to Extend Time for Compliance with Certain
9 Deadlines Set by the Court’s December 22, 2011 Order before the Court-ordered deadline for
10 compliance passes.
Pursuant to the Court’s order, Samsung has until December 31, 2011 to
11 complete the production of a broad range of documents requested by Apple. Samsung has been
12 working literally around the clock to comply with Apple’s request, and will have produced the
13 majority of the requested documents by the December 31 deadline.
14
3.
Despite Samsung’s round-the-clock efforts, there is a discrete subset of documents
15 that Samsung will not be able to produce by the December 31 deadline.
16
4.
Counsel for Samsung reached out to counsel for Apple as soon as it became
17 apparent that Samsung would not be able to meet the December 31 deadline with respect to the
18 limited subset of documents. Samsung offered to stipulate to a revised deadline of January 9,
19 2012 for the limited documents remaining to be produced.
At 1:43pm on December 29, 2011,
20 Apple communicated its intention to oppose Samsung’s request.
21
5.
Counsel for Samsung also requested that, in the event that Apple opposed
22 Samsung’s Motion to Extend Time, Apple stipulate to the expedited briefing schedule set forth in
23 Samsung’s motion to shorten time . Apple indicated without explanation that it opposes this
24 request as well, and offered no alternative schedule.
25
6.
Pursuant to L.R. 6-3(a)(5), previous time modifications in the case, whether by
26 stipulation or Court order, include the following:
27
28
02198.51855/4528196.1
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-2KASSABIAN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
1
A.
2
3
On April 26, 2011, the Court granted Apple’s motion to shorten time for
briefing and hearing on its motion to expedite discovery. (Dkt No. 26.)
B.
On May 9, 2011, Apple and Samsung stipulated and agreed that the time for
4
Samsung to serve responsive pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(a) shall be 75
5
days after April 21, 2011. On May 10, 2011, the Court signed the
6
Stipulation and Order regarding an extension of time for Samsung to serve
7
responsive pleadings. (Dkt No. 40.)
8
C.
time for hearing and briefing on Samsung’s Motion to Compel Reciprocal
9
10
11
On June 1, 2011, the Court granted in part Samsung’s request to shorten
Expedited Discovery.
D.
(Dkt No. 59.)
On July 18, 2011 the Court ordered a briefing schedule related to expedited
12
discovery and Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction, setting dates
13
from July 2011 through the October 13, 2011 hearing on Apple’s Motion
14
for Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt No. 115.)
15
E.
On July 21, 2011, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to extend the
16
time for briefing Samsung’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel Bridges &
17
Mavrakakis, LLP. (Dkt No. 125.)
18
F.
On September 1, 2011 the Court granted Samsung’s stipulated motion to
19
expedite briefing on Samsung’s Motion to Compel Apple to Produce
20
Documents and Things.
21
G.
(Dkt No. 199)
On September 6, 2011 the Court granted Apple’s stipulated motion to
22
extend time for Apple to respond to Samsung’s Motion to Exclude the
23
Ordinary Observer Opinions of Apple Expert Cooper Woodring.
24
210.)
25
26
H.
(Dkt No.
On September 20, 2011, the Court granted Samsung’s unopposed motion to
change the hearing date on its motion to dismiss. (Dkt No. 244.)
27
28
02198.51855/4528196.1
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-3KASSABIAN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
1
I.
On September 23, 2011, the Court granted Apple’s motion to shorten time
to expedite briefing on Apple’s motion to compel. (Dkt No. 255.)
2
3
J.
On October 3, 2011, the Court granted-in-part Samsung’s motion to shorten
4
the briefing and hearing schedule on Samsung’s motion to compel.
5
No. 287.)
6
K.
(Dkt
On October 27, 2011, the Court granted Apple’s motion to shorten time for
7
the briefing and hearing schedule for its motion for a protective order.
8
(Dkt No. 332.)
9
L.
On October 31, 2011, the Court granted Samsung’s motion to shorten the
10
briefing and hearing schedule on Samsung’s motion to compel.
11
350.)
12
M.
On December 9, 2011, the Court granted Apple’s motion to shorten time for
briefing and hearing on Apple’s motion to compel.
13
14
N.
(Dkt No.
(Dkt No. 477.)
On December 13, 2011, the Court granted Samsung’s motion to shorten
15
time for briefing and hearing on Samsung’s motion to compel.
16
499).
17
O.
On December 22, 2011, the Court granted Apple’s motion to shorten time
for briefing and hearing on Apple’s motion to strike. (Dkt. No. 538).
18
19
(Dkt. No.
7.
The present request to shorten the briefing and hearing schedule on Samsung’s
20 Motion to Extend Time for Compliance with Certain Deadlines Set by the Court’s December 22,
21 2011 Order will not affect the schedule of the case.
22
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed in
23 Truckee, California on December 29, 2011.
24
25
/s/ Rachel Herrick Kassabian
26
27
28
02198.51855/4528196.1
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-4KASSABIAN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
1
2
General Order 45 Attestation
I, Victoria F. Maroulis, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to file this
3 Declaration.
In compliance with General Order 45(X)(B), I hereby attest that Rachel Herrick
4 Kassabian has concurred in this filing.
5
/s/ Victoria Maroulis
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4528196.1
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-5KASSABIAN DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
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?