Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
715
Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Apple's Administration to File Documents Under Seal filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Apple Inc.'s Motion for Rule 37(B)(2) Sanctions for Samsung's Violation of Two Discovery Orders, #2 Declaration of Minn Cheung in Support of Apple's Motion for Sanctions, #3 Exhibit T to Chung Declaration, #4 Exhibit V to Chung Declaration, #5 Exhibit Y to Chung Declaration, #6 Exhibit Z to Chung Declaration, #7 Exhibit AA to Chung Declaration, #8 Proposed Order Granting Apple's Motion for Sanctions, #9 Proposed Order Granting Admin Motion)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 2/8/2012)
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document277 Filed09/30/11 Page1 of 87
1
2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
SAN JOSE DIVISION
5
6
7
8
APPLE, INC.,
PLAINTIFF,
VS.
9
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., ET AL,
10
DEFENDANT.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CV-11-1846-LHK
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011
PAGES 1-87
11
12
13
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HONORABLE PAUL S. GREWAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
A P P E A R A N C E S:
16
FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
MORRISON FOERSTER
BY: WESLEY OVERSON
RICHARD HUNG
MINN CHUNG
MICHAEL JACOBS
425 MARKET STREET
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
FOR THE DEFENDANT:
QUINN EMANUEL
BY: VICTORIA MAROULIS
BRETT ARNOLD
KEVIN JOHNSON
555 TWIN DOLPHIN DRIVE, 5TH FL
REDWOOD SHORES, CA 94065
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER: SUMMER FISHER, CSR, CRR
CERTIFICATE NUMBER 13185
1
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document277 Filed09/30/11 Page2 of 87
1
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA
2
P R O C E E D I N G S
3
4
(WHEREUPON, COURT CONVENED AND THE
FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE HELD:)
5
6
THE COURT:
PLEASE HAVE A
MR. RIVERA, WHENEVER YOU ARE READY, WOULD
YOU CALL THE MATTER ON THIS MORNING'S CALENDAR
9
THE CLERK:
10
11
GOOD MORNING.
SEAT.
7
8
SEPTEMBER 28, 2011
YES, YOUR HONOR.
CALLING APPLE, INC. VERSUS SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS, ET AL.
CASE NUMBER CV-11-1846.
12
COUNSEL, PLEASE STATE YOUR APPEARANCES.
13
MR. OVERSON:
14
APPLE, INC.
15
16
17
18
19
20
WESLEY OVERSON ON BEHALF OF
THE COURT:
MR OVERSON, GOOD MORNING,
SIR.
MS. MAROULIS:
VICTORIA MAROULIS WITH
QUINN EMANUEL ON BEHALF OF SAMSUNG.
AND WITH ME IS MR. KEVIN JOHNSON ALSO FOR
SAMSUNG AND BRETT ARNOLD.
21
THE COURT:
22
WELCOME BACK, MS. MAROULIS.
23
GOOD MORNING, GENTLEMAN.
24
MR. OVERSON:
25
ALL RIGHT.
YOUR HONOR, MAY I ALSO
INTRODUCE MR. JACOBS, MR. HUNG AND MR. MINN CHUNG.
2
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document277 Filed09/30/11 Page45 of 87
1
SAMSUNG HAS ALREADY PRODUCED AND WHICH WE BELIEVE
2
THE COMPLAINTS ARE WARRANTED.
3
AND THERE'S ONE CATEGORY OF DOCUMENTS
4
THAT SAMSUNG BELIEVES IS IN DISPUTE, THE ONLY ONE
5
IN DISPUTE AND THAT'S THE DOCUMENTS GOING TO THE
6
CUSTOMER CONFUSION OR ALLEGED CONFUSION.
7
SO WITH RESPECT TO THE FIRST SET OF
8
ISSUES WHICH IS FOUR DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF
9
DOCUMENTS, WE BELIEVE THAT THE RECORD IS CLEAR FROM
10
THE JENKINS DECLARATION AND FROM OUR BRIEF AND
11
OTHERWISE THAT WE'VE PRODUCED DOCUMENTS AFTER
12
REASONABLE SEARCH THAT ANSWER THESE REQUESTS.
13
THE COURT:
IS IT YOUR POSITION YOU HAVE
14
PRODUCED ALL DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED
15
AFTER A REASONABLE SEARCH?
16
MS. MAROULIS:
YOUR HONOR, IT'S ALWAYS
17
HARD TO SAY ALL DOCUMENTS WITH A COMPANY OF THAT
18
SIZE.
19
THE COURT:
20
MS. MAROULIS:
21
22
THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING.
I THINK NOBODY CAN MAKE A
REPRESENTATION.
BUT IT'S CLEAR FROM OUR DECLARATIONS THAT
23
WE'VE CONDUCTED THE SEARCH AND WE CAME UP WITH A
24
NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS.
25
THAT APPLE COUNSEL RIDICULED, BUT THOSE DOCUMENTS
THERE'S A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS
45
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document277 Filed09/30/11 Page46 of 87
1
COME FROM THE DESIGNER FILES OF SAMSUNG EMPLOYEES
2
AND THEY WERE THEMSELVES INQUIRING DEPOSITIONS
3
ABOUT SOURCE OF INSPIRATION.
4
5
SO THOSE ARE THE DOCUMENTS THAT PROVIDE
SOURCE OF INSPIRATION.
6
THE COURT:
REALLY?
THE EXTERIOR OF A
7
BUILDING WAS SOURCE OF INSPIRATION FOR ONE OF THE
8
PRODUCTS?
9
10
MS. MAROULIS:
DESIGNERS COLLECT IDEAS.
11
12
APPARENTLY THIS IS THE WAY
THE COURT:
THAT'S YOUR POSITION?
THAT'S
WHAT THEY ARE TELLING YOU?
13
MS. MAROULIS:
YOUR HONOR, IT COMES FROM
14
THE DESIGNERS' FILES DIRECTLY AND I WOULD RATHER
15
NOT GO FURTHER INTO THAT TO AVOID PROTECTIVE ORDER
16
ISSUES.
17
THE COURT:
ALL RIGHT.
18
MS. MAROULIS:
AMONG THE DOCUMENTS WE
19
PRODUCED ARE A LOT OF CATEGORIES THAT EXHAUSTIVELY
20
ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF -- FOR EXAMPLE, TWO WEEKS AGO
21
WE WERE BEFORE YOUR HONOR AND APPLE COUNSEL WAS
22
MAKING ARGUMENT THAT CAD TIMES ARE THE AND ALL AND
23
BE ALL.
24
25
WE PRODUCED THE CAD FILES.
CAD FILES.
THEY HAVE OUR
THE CAD FILES SPAN BACK, THEY CAN LOOK
46
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document277 Filed09/30/11 Page47 of 87
1
2
AT ITERATIONS OF DESIGN AND MAKE CONCLUSIONS.
THE COURT:
WHAT ABOUT SKETCHBOOKS?
YOU
3
WERE VERY PERSUASIVE IN EXPLAINING THE SIGNIFICANCE
4
OF SKETCHBOOKS.
5
6
7
8
9
MS. MAROULIS:
YOUR HONOR, THE SKETCHBOOK
BELONG TO THE INVENTORS OF THE PATENTS.
THE COURT:
THEY DON'T HAVE SIMILAR
SKETCHBOOKS?
MS. MAROULIS:
10
SKETCHBOOKS.
11
WE DON'T HAVE SIMILAR
THAT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED.
12
WE HAVE LOOSE NOTES AND PRESENTATIONS
SO IN THE JENKINS DECLARATION THERE'S A
13
LIST OF DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF DESIGN DOCUMENTS
14
THAT HAVE BEEN PRODUCED.
15
BUT WHAT YOUR HONOR FOCUSED ON EARLIER
16
CORRECTLY IS THAT REQUEST 1 ACTUALLY DOESN'T GO TO
17
ALL DESIGN DOCUMENTS, IT GOES TO DOCUMENTS WHERE
18
THERE WAS ANY COMPARISON OF THE TIMES.
19
SO IN THE PRODUCTION AS A WHOLE, WE
20
PRODUCED DOCUMENTS REGARDING MARKET ANALYSIS OF
21
APPLE PRODUCTS INCLUDING DOCUMENTS LOOKING AT THE
22
INTERNALS OF THE IPHONES, THE TEAR DOWNS.
23
DOCUMENTS WERE IN THE PRODUCTION.
24
25
SO THOSE
BUT IN PRODUCING OUR DESIGN DOCUMENTS WE
ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO MANUFACTURE DOCUMENTS THAT
47
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document277 Filed09/30/11 Page48 of 87
1
DON'T EXIST.
2
DOCUMENT, A DOCUMENT THAT SAYS WE COPIED SOMETHING
3
FROM APPLE.
4
5
THEY ARE LOOKING FOR A SMOKING GUN
WE DON'T HAVE THOSE DOCUMENTS.
WE HAVE TAKEN A 30(B)(6) DEPOSITION LAST
WEEK --
6
THE COURT:
WELL, JUST TO BE PRECISE,
7
THEIR POSITION, THEIR REPRESENTATIONS THAT YOU HAVE
8
NOT IDENTIFIED ANY SUCH DOCUMENTS BASED ON THE
9
INVESTIGATION YOU HAVE DONE TODAY.
10
I THINK YOU JUST TOLD ME EARLIER YOU
11
CAN'T STAND HERE AND MAKE A REPRESENTATION THAT NO
12
SUCH DOCUMENT EXISTS OF YOUR CLIENT BECAUSE YOU
13
DON'T KNOW.
14
15
MS. MAROULIS:
THAT'S CORRECT,
YOUR HONOR.
16
BUT I DO WANT TO TALK BRIEFLY ABOUT THE
17
30(B)(6) DEPOSITION OF A SAMSUNG REPRESENTATIVE WHO
18
ASKS SPECIFICALLY WHETHER HE INTERVIEWED THE
19
DESIGNERS OF THE PRODUCTS AT ISSUE.
20
HE TESTIFIED HE SPOKE WITH ALL OF THEM
21
AND INQUIRED EXTENSIVELY WHETHER ANY OF THEM
22
CONSIDERED APPLE PRODUCTS WHEN DESIGNING THEIR
23
PRODUCTS, NOT JUST COPYING, BUT ANY CONSIDERATION
24
OF FRAME OF REFERENCE.
25
NOT.
THEY TESTIFIED THEY HAVE
48
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document277 Filed09/30/11 Page49 of 87
1
2
3
THE COURT:
SO HE SPOKE WITH EACH OF
THESE 13 INDIVIDUALS?
MS. MAROULIS:
HE SPOKE WITH MAYBE 7 OR 8
4
INDIVIDUALS, HE SPOKE WITH PRINCIPAL DESIGNERS FOR
5
ALL OF THE FOUR PRODUCTS AT ISSUE.
6
THE COURT:
IT IS TRUE THOUGH, IS IT NOT,
7
THAT THERE WERE 13 PEOPLE IDENTIFIED IN YOUR
8
INTERROGATORY IN 26(A) RESPONSES?
9
MS. MAROULIS:
THINKING BACK ACTUALLY, HE
10
HAS TALKED TO EVERYONE WHO WAS IDENTIFIED IN
11
INTERROGATORY 1 RESPONSE.
12
STANDING HERE NOW HE TALKED TO EVERYONE IN THE
13
INITIAL DISCLOSURES.
14
HE DID SPEAK WITH INDIVIDUALS FROM INTERROGATORY 1.
BUT I CANNOT SAY
THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.
BUT
15
THE COURT:
ALL RIGHT.
16
SO AS TO INTERROGATORY 1, OR ANY OF THE
17
OTHER INDIVIDUALS IN 26(A) RESPONSES, HAVE
18
DOCUMENTS BEEN COLLECTED?
19
MS. MAROULIS:
DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN
20
COLLECTED FROM INDIVIDUALS LISTED IN THE
21
INTERROGATORY 1 TO THE EXTENT THEY HAD THEM, AND
22
ADDITIONAL INDIVIDUALS TOO.
23
WERE FAIRLY WIDE RANGING.
24
THE COURT:
25
MS. MAROULIS:
THE DOCUMENT EFFORTS
OKAY.
AND HERE IF YOUR HONOR
49
Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document277 Filed09/30/11 Page87 of 87
1
2
3
4
CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER
5
6
7
8
9
I, THE UNDERSIGNED OFFICIAL COURT
REPORTER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
10
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 280 SOUTH
11
FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY
12
CERTIFY:
13
THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT,
14
CERTIFICATE INCLUSIVE, CONSTITUTES A TRUE, FULL AND
15
CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF MY SHORTHAND NOTES TAKEN AS
16
SUCH OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS
17
HEREINBEFORE ENTITLED AND REDUCED BY COMPUTER-AIDED
18
TRANSCRIPTION TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY.
19
20
21
22
23
__________________________
SUMMER A. FISHER, CSR, CRR
CERTIFICATE NUMBER 13185
24
25
87
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?