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

Filing 631

OPPOSITION to ( 602 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal ( re Samsung's January 10, 2012 Filings ) Apple's Opposition to Samsung's Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery Relating to Mac OS 10.0, filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Mazza Declaration, # 2 Bartlett Declaration, # 3 Exhibit A to Bartlett Declaration, # 4 Exhibit B to Bartlett Declaration, # 5 Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 1/17/2012) Modified text on 1/18/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) hmcelhinny@mofo.com MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) mjacobs@mofo.com JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368) jtaylor@mofo.com ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363) atucher@mofo.com RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425) rhung@mofo.com JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530) jasonbartlett@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 WILLIAM F. LEE william.lee@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180) mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 10 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC. 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 SAN JOSE DIVISION 16 17 APPLE INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, 18 19 20 21 22 v. 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., 23 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) APPLE’S OPPOSITION TO SAMSUNG’S RENEWED MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY RELATING TO MAC OS 10.0 Date: Time: Place: Judge: January 19, 2012 10:00 a.m. Courtroom 5, 4th Floor Hon. Paul S. Grewal Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 APPLE’S OPP. TO SAMSUNG’S RENEWED MOT. TO COMPEL DISC. RE: MAC OS 10.0 CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG) sf-3093848 1 Samsung’s motion warrants only the following brief response. 2 First, the motion is moot. Apple has already produced to Samsung the relief sought by its 3 motion. Samsung moves for production of a functioning computer that is capable of running Mac 4 OS version 10.0 and producing a “brightness adjustment window” that Samsung contends is a 5 feature of that operating system. Apple made such a computer, with the specified “brightness 6 adjustment window” capability, available to Samsung on January 12, 2012. (Declaration of Jason 7 R. Bartlett in Support of Apple’s Opposition to Samsung’s Renewed Motion to Compel 8 Discovery Relating to Mac OS 10 ¶ 2 and Ex. A.) Samsung inspected that computer shortly 9 thereafter. (Id. ¶ 2 and Ex. B.) 10 Second, Samsung failed to comply with Judge Koh’s meet and confer requirement. (Dkt. 11 No. 187.) Samsung contends that it has been “excused” from that requirement, citing an order by 12 Judge Koh dated December 13, 2011, but that order only relieved Samsung from the meet and 13 confer requirement for the motion to compel filed by Samsung that same day. (See Dkt. No. 498; 14 see also Dkt. No. 480 (seeking relief from meet and confer requirement “for Samsung’s 15 concurrently filed motions to compel”). Indeed, Judge Koh explicitly advised that “[i]n the 16 future, the parties must adhere to the in person meet and confer requirement set forth in the 17 August 25, 2011 case management order.” (Dkt. No. 498.) 18 The parties conducted a lead-counsel conference on January 5. (Declaration of Mia 19 Mazza in Support of Apple’s Opposition to Samsung’s Renewed Motion to Compel Discovery 20 Relating to Mac OS 10 (“Mazza Decl.”) ¶ 2.) The night before the conference, Apple advised 21 Samsung that technicians were working on resolving the brightness window problem on the 22 computer made available to Samsung. (Mazza Decl. ¶ 2; see also Declaration of Jason R. Bartlett 23 in Support of Apple’s Opposition to Samsung’s Motion to Enforce Various Court Orders, filed 24 herewith, Ex. B at 1.) Samsung did not raise the issue the next day during the lead counsel 25 conference. (Mazza Decl. ¶ 3.) Nor did Samsung communicate further on this issue before filing 26 its motion. (Id.) If it had done so, Samsung would have learned that the computer was already 27 waiting for it at Morrison & Foerster’s offices in Palo Alto. 28 APPLE’S OPP. TO SAMSUNG’S RENEWED MOT. TO COMPEL DISC. RE: MAC OS 10.0 CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG) sf-3093848 1 1 Samsung’s motion should be denied. 2 3 Dated: January 17, 2012 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 4 5 6 7 By: /s/ Michael A. Jacobs MICHAEL A. JACOBS Attorneys for Plaintiff APPLE INC. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPLE’S OPP. TO SAMSUNG’S RENEWED MOT. TO COMPEL DISC. RE: MAC OS 10.0 CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG) sf-3093848 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?