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).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
[e-mail]
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
[e-mail]
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

WILLIAM F. LEE
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

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