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

Filing 736

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order granting administrative to file under seal, #2 [Public] APPLE INC.S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF 14 OF SAMSUNGS PURPORTED APEX WITNESSES, #3 Declaration [Public] Mazza Declaration in Support of APPLE INC.S MOTION TO COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF 14 OF SAMSUNGS PURPORTED APEX WITNESSES, #4 Exhibit 15, #5 Exhibit 16, #6 Proposed Order granting motion to compel)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 2/16/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN JOSE DIVISION

12

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; and
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company,

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO
COMPEL DEPOSITIONS OF 14 OF
SAMSUNG’S PURPORTED “APEX”
WITNESSES

18
Defendants.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROPOSED ORDER RE: COMPELLING THE DEPOSITIONS OF 14 SAMSUNG’S PURPORTED “APEX” WITNESSES
CASE NO. 11-CV01846-LHK
sf-3107621

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and 30, and this Court’s inherent authority,

2

Apple Inc. (“Apple”) has moved for an order compelling the depositions of Samsung Electronics

3

Co., Ltd.’s, Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s, and Samsung Telecommunications America’s,

4

LLC (collectively, “Samsung’s”) witnesses listed below. Having considered the arguments of the

5

parties and the papers submitted, and GOOD CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, the Court

6

hereby GRANTS Apple’s Motion to Compel Depositions of 14 of Samsung’s Purported “Apex”

7

Witnesses.

8
9

Samsung originally objected to the depositions of 23 Samsung employees, contending that
these individuals were “apex” witnesses whose depositions would be improper. Apple

10

subsequently withdrew notices for six of those witnesses and Samsung withdrew its objections to

11

another three, leaving fourteen at issue. These witnesses were primarily vice presidents in charge

12

of various Samsung divisions, in addition to a few higher-level executives. The Court finds that

13

these witnesses have unique, firsthand, non-repetitive knowledge of facts and events relevant to

14

Apple’s case. Apple has produced for deposition numerous high-level employees at comparable

15

levels of the 14 witnesses at issue.

16

For the reasons detailed in Apple’s motion and supporting declarations and exhibits, the

17

“apex” deposition rule does not apply to these witnesses. There is substantial evidence that these

18

witnesses were actively involved in detailed, hands-on decision-making at Samsung concerning

19

key issues in this case. The same evidence also shows that these witnesses posses knowledge or

20

viewpoints unique, or at least better than, the witnesses previously deposed. Moreover, Apple has

21

exhausted other, less intrusive means of discovery. Samsung has not shown any legitimate basis

22

to prevent Apple from taking these depositions.

23

Although Apple gave timely notice of these depositions and sought to take them well in

24

advance of the discovery cut-off during times when its attorneys would be in Korea taking other

25

depositions, Samsung’s refusal to produce these witnesses cost Apple the chance to take these

26

depositions during those times. The Court finds that Apple would be prejudiced if it now had to

27

send teams of attorneys to Korea for perhaps multiple depositions per day, in a compressed

28

timetable due to the upcoming discovery cut-off on March 8.
PROPOSED ORDER RE: COMPELLING THE DEPOSITIONS OF 14 SAMSUNG’S PURPORTED “APEX” WITNESSES
CASE NO. 11-CV01846-LHK
sf-3107621

1

1

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Samsung to provide dates, earlier than the close of fact

2

discovery on March 8, 2012, for the depositions of the following 14 Samsung witnesses to take

3

place in the Bay Area:

4

1.

Seungho Ahn

5

2.

Dong Hoon Chang

6

3.

Joseph (Joon Kyo) Cheong

7

4.

Jaewan Chi

8

5.

Seunghwan Cho

9

6.

Gee Sung Choi

10

7.

Minhyung Chung

11

8.

Won-Pyo Hong

12

9.

Heonbae Kim

13

10.

Dong Jin Koh

14

11.

Ken Korea

15

12.

Seung Gun Park

16

13.

Jong-Kyun Shin

17

14.

Dale Sohn

18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated: February _____, 2012

________________________________________
Honorable Paul S. Grewal
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PROPOSED ORDER RE: COMPELLING THE DEPOSITIONS OF 14 SAMSUNG’S PURPORTED “APEX” WITNESSES
CASE NO. 11-CV01846-LHK
sf-3107621

2