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

Filing 570

STIPULATION and Proposed Order Extending Deadline for Samsung to File Objections by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Arnold Declaration)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 1/4/2012)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]
 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
 [e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]
 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 BRETT ARNOLD IN
SUPPORT OF THE STIPULATION AND
[PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING
DEADLINE FOR SAMSUNG TO FILE
OBJECTIONS TO THE COURT’S
ORDER AT DOCKET NO. 535



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.






02198.51855/4532700.3

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
ARNOLD DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME
________

1

I, Brett Arnold, declare:

2

1.

I am an associate 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 the parties’ Stipulation and Proposed Order Extending

8 Deadline for Samsung to File Objections to the Court’s Order at Docket No. 535 is intended to
9 give the parties sufficient time to resolve several of Samsung’s outstanding concerns about the
10 Court’s December 22, 2011 order regarding Samsung’s expert Itay Sherman.

Samsung

11 represented to Apple that it believes it should be allowed to show certain design documents to Mr.
12 Sherman that were not specifically addressed in the Court’s order. Samsung also informed Apple
13 that it hopes it can resolve its concerns directly with Apple without court intervention, or through a
14 motion for clarification submitted directly to Magistrate Judge Grewal, to avoid filing objections
15 with the district judge.
16

3.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and Local Rule 72-2, Samsung

17 has only 14 days — that is, until Thursday, January 5, 2012 — to file with the district judge a
18 motion for relief from the December 22 order.

The parties have scheduled a lead counsel meet

19 and confer for that same day, January 5, to attempt to resolve issues such as this out of court.
20

4.

Yesterday, counsel for Apple indicated that Apple would stipulate to a 10-day

21 extension of Samsung’s deadline to file objections to the Court’s order (Dkt No. 535) and that
22 Apple would be willing to discuss further extensions if the parties’ progress warrants.
23

5.

Pursuant to L.R. 6-3(a)(5), previous time modifications in the case, whether by

24 stipulation or Court order, include the following:
25
26

A.

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.)

27
28

02198.51855/4532700.3

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-2ARNOLD DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME

1

B.

On May 9, 2011, Apple and Samsung stipulated and agreed that the time for

2

Samsung to serve responsive pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(a) shall be 75

3

days after April 21, 2011. On May 10, 2011, the Court signed the

4

Stipulation and Order regarding an extension of time for Samsung to serve

5

responsive pleadings. (Dkt No. 40.)

6

C.

On June 1, 2011, the Court granted in part Samsung’s request to shorten

7

time for hearing and briefing on Samsung’s Motion to Compel Reciprocal

8

Expedited Discovery.

9

D.

(Dkt No. 59.)

On July 18, 2011 the Court ordered a briefing schedule related to expedited

10

discovery and Apple’s motion for a preliminary injunction, setting dates

11

from July 2011 through the October 13, 2011 hearing on Apple’s Motion

12

for Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt No. 115.)

13

E.

On July 21, 2011, the Court granted the parties’ stipulation to extend the

14

time for briefing Samsung’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel Bridges &

15

Mavrakakis, LLP. (Dkt No. 125.)

16

F.

On September 1, 2011 the Court granted Samsung’s stipulated motion to

17

expedite briefing on Samsung’s Motion to Compel Apple to Produce

18

Documents and Things.

19

G.

(Dkt No. 199)

On September 6, 2011 the Court granted Apple’s stipulated motion to

20

extend time for Apple to respond to Samsung’s Motion to Exclude the

21

Ordinary Observer Opinions of Apple Expert Cooper Woodring.

22

210.)

23

H.

24
25
26

(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.)

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.)

27
28

02198.51855/4532700.3

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-3ARNOLD DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME

1

J.

On October 3, 2011, the Court granted-in-part Samsung’s motion to shorten

2

the briefing and hearing schedule on Samsung’s motion to compel.

3

No. 287.)

4

K.

(Dkt

On October 27, 2011, the Court granted Apple’s motion to shorten time for

5

the briefing and hearing schedule for its motion for a protective order.

6

(Dkt No. 332.)

7

L.

On October 31, 2011, the Court granted Samsung’s motion to shorten the

8

briefing and hearing schedule on Samsung’s motion to compel.

9

350.)

10

M.

On December 9, 2011, the Court granted Apple’s motion to shorten time for
briefing and hearing on Apple’s motion to compel.

11
12

N.

(Dkt No.

(Dkt No. 477.)

On December 13, 2011, the Court granted Samsung’s motion to shorten

13

time for briefing and hearing on Samsung’s motion to compel. (Dkt. No.

14

499).

15

O.

for briefing and hearing on Apple’s motion to strike. (Dkt. No. 538).

16
17

P.

On December 30, 2011, the Court granted Samsung’s motion to shorten
time for briefing on Samsung’s motion to extend time. (Dkt No. 566.)

18
19

On December 22, 2011, the Court granted Apple’s motion to shorten time

6.

The present request will not affect any other deadlines in this case.

20
21

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed in

22 Redwood Shores, California on January 4, 2012.
23
24

/s/ Brett Arnold

25
26
27
28

02198.51855/4532700.3

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-4ARNOLD DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE STIPULATION TO EXTEND 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 Brett Arnold has

4 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

02198.51855/4532700.3

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-5ARNOLD DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF THE STIPULATION TO EXTEND TIME