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

Filing 745

ORDER by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying #738 Motion to Shorten Time (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/21/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

7

SAN JOSE DIVISION

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

APPLE INC.,

)
)
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,
)
)
)
Defendants.

Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
SHORTEN TIME FOR BRIEFING
AND HEARING ON PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO COMPEL
DEPOSITIONS OF FOURTEEN
“APEX” WITNESSES
(Re: Docket No. 738)

In this patent infringement suit, Plaintiff Apple Inc. (“Apple”) has moved pursuant to Civ.
L.R. 6-1(b) and 6-3 for an order to shorten the briefing and hearing schedule on Apple’s motion to

19
compel depositions of fourteen of Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics
20
21

America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC’s (collectively "Samsung")

22

purported “apex” witnesses. Samsung opposes the motion for an order shortening time. Samsung

23

also states that it intends to file a motion for protective order to prevent the fourteen depositions at

24

issue. The parties appeared this afternoon for a telephonic hearing on the motion to shorten time.

25
26

In its January 31, 2012 order denying a similar motion for shortened time brought by
Samsung, the court expressed its concerns regarding the litany of shortened time requests that have

27
poured forth in this lawsuit and directed the parties to consider carefully the resultant unfairness to
28

1

Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME AND VACATING
PLAINTIFF’S HEARING ON SHORTENED TIME

1

litigants in other pending cases while the court prioritizes – yet again – the resolution of a

2

discovery dispute between Apple and Samsung. In light of these considerations, the court finds that

3

Apple has failed to establish good cause to shorten time on its motion to compel the fourteen

4

depositions in dispute.1 Apple’s concerns regarding the impact that being heard on a regular

5

schedule will have on the expedited trial schedule are mitigated by Samsung’s representations

6
7
8

during the telephonic hearing that it will comply immediately with any order requiring it to
produce those witnesses, even after the close of fact discovery in this case.2
The court accordingly DENIES Apple’s motion for an order shortening the briefing and

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9
10

hearing schedule. Apple may re-notice the hearing in accordance with Civ. L.R. 7-2(a). Samsung

11

shall notice its motion for protective order to be heard together with Apple’s motion.3

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated: 2/17/2012

14
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
1

22
23

Apple has presented no assessment of or even mentioned how its urgent need for consideration of
its motion to compel compares to or outweighs the needs of others who require the court’s
attention.
2

24
25
26
27
28

The court suggests that Samsung refrain from relying on any such “delayed” discovery, resulting
from an order of the undersigned, as a basis for seeking to modify the trial schedule in this case.

3

The burden in addressing a set of motions relating to no fewer than fourteen purported “apex”
witnesses that Samsung refuses to produce is likely to be substantial. If the court finds that either
Apple or Samsung has created this burden unnecessarily, the court will not hesitate to fashion
appropriate sanctions. The parties are strongly encouraged to use the additional time available to
them to carry out further attempts through the meet and confer process to reduce the number of
individuals in dispute.
2

Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME AND VACATING
PLAINTIFF’S HEARING ON SHORTENED TIME