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

Filing 692

MOTION to Shorten Time for Briefing and Hearing on Samsung's Motion to Permit Samsung's Expert Samuel Lucente to Review Materials Designated Under the Protective Order (Dkt No. 691) filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Brett Arnold, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Proposed Order)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 1/31/2012)

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



SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN
TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING
ITS MOTION TO PERMIT SAMUEL
LUCENTE TO REVIEW MATERIALS
DESIGNATED UNDER THE
PROTECTIVE 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.




02198.51855/4577498.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING ________

1

Defendants Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and

2 Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) bring this motion to
3 shorten time for briefing and hearing Samsung’s Motion to Permit Its Expert Samuel Lucente to
4 Review Materials Designated Under the Protective Order (the “Motion to Permit”).
5

Specifically, Samsung requests that:

6

1. Apple’s opposition to the Motion to Permit be filed by Friday, February 3, 2012

7

2. Samsung's reply be filed by Monday, February 6, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.

8

3. The hearing be set for Tuesday, February 7, 2012 at 10:00 a.m.

9

The shortened schedule is necessary because if it were set according to the local rules, the

10 hearing on Samsung’s Motion to Permit would not occur until March 6, 2012.

The parties' initial

11 expert reports are due by March 22, 2012, however, and Samsung needs to begin showing Apple's
12 highly confidential documents, including inventor deposition transcripts, to Mr. Lucente well
13 before March 6.

Apple has even agreed to the above schedule, with the exception that it would

14 not stipulate to Samsung's having a chance to reply.

(See Arnold Decl., Exs. A & B.)

15 Moreover, the Court will already be hearing argument from the parties on Tuesday morning,
16 February 7, regarding Apple's pending motion to compel, which also was set on shortened time.
17 (See Dkt No. 688.)
18

Finally, Samsung notes that it would normally waive any right to a reply when a matter is

19 set on shortened time, but this is a unique situation. Despite two lead counsel meet and confers
20 and numerous letters sent to Apple on this issue, Samsung still does not know the reasons behind
21 Apple's objection to Mr. Lucente based on patents that Mr. Lucente invented in the 1990s.

Thus,

22 no matter what argument Apple raises in its opposition to explain how Apple's business will suffer
23 serious harm by disclosure of its allegedly highly confidential documents to Mr. Lucente, it will be
24 the first time Samsung sees such an explanation.

Samsung therefore respectfully requests

25 permission to file a short reply before the issue is submitted to the Court for oral argument.
26 Indeed, Samsung may need to provide a declaration from Mr. Lucente to clarify certain issues for
27 the Court depending on Apple’s arguments.
28
02198.51855/4577498.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING ________

-1-

1

This shortened schedule would not affect any other deadlines in the case.

2
3 DATED: January 30, 2011
4

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

By /s/ Michael T. Zeller
Charles K. Verhoeven
Kevin P.B. Johnson
Victoria F. Maroulis
Michael T. Zeller
Rachel Herrick Kassabian
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51855/4577498.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING ________

-2-

1
2

General Order 45 Attestation
I, Victoria F. Maroulis, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to e-file

3 this Declaration.

In compliance with General Order 45(X)(B), I hereby attest that Michael Zeller

4 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
02198.51855/4577498.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING ________

-3-