Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
792
ORDER by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting #789 Stipulation as modified by the Court (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/9/2012)
1
Counsel Information Appears on the Following Page
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
12
APPLE INC.,
13
14
15
16
17
Case No.
Plaintiff,
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,
11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER REGARDING SCHEDULE
FOR BRIEFING APEX-RELATED
MOTION TO COMPEL AND
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE
ORDER
18
Defendant.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S APEX-RELATED MOTIONS
11-cv-01846-LKH (PSG)
sf-3117720
1
2
Pursuant to Civil L.R. 6-2, Apple and Samsung file this Stipulation requesting that the
3
Court revise the briefing schedule for Apple’s Apex Motion and Samsung’s related Protective
4
Order Motion.
5
WHEREAS, on February 16, 2012, Apple filed and served a Motion to Compel
6
Depositions of 14 of Samsung’s Purported “Apex” Witnesses (“Apex Motion”) (Docket
7
No. 736);
8
9
WHEREAS, on February 23, 2012, Samsung filed and served a Motion for Protective
Order (“Protective Order Motion”) relating to the Apex Motion (Docket No. 754-2);
10
WHEREAS, Apple’ opposition to the Protective Order Motion and its reply in support of
11
the Apex Motion are currently due on March 8 and March 15, 2012, respectively, and Samsung’s
12
reply in support of the Protective Order Motion is currently due on March 15, 2012;
13
WHEREAS, the parties agree that Apple’s opposition and reply briefs should be
14
combined into a single brief to reduce the total number of briefs filed with the Court on apex-
15
related issues; and
16
17
18
19
20
WHEREAS, the proposed adjusted schedule would not postpone any of the other
deadlines set in this case;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED and agreed to by and between the
parties that:
1.
Apple’s opposition to Samsung’s Protective Order Motion, and Apple’s reply in
21
support of its Apex Motion, shall be filed as a single brief, not to exceed 25 pages, no later than
22
March 12, 2012.
23
2.
24
March 19, 2012.
Samsung’s reply in support of its Protective Order Motion shall be filed on
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S APEX-RELATED MOTIONS
11-cv-01846-LKH (PSG)
sf-3117720
1
1
2
3
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Dated: March 8, 2012
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
4
5
By:
6
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: (415) 268-7000
Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
7
8
9
Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.
10
11
12
/s/ Michael A. Jacobs
Michael A. Jacobs
Dated: March 8, 2012
RACHEL HERRICK KASSABIAN
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
By:
/s/ Rachel Herrick Kassabian
Rachel Herrick Kassabian
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 875-6600
Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
Telephone: (650) 801-5000
Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: (213) 443-3000
Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
Attorneys for Defendants
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS
AMERICA, LLC
STIPULATION RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S APEX-RELATED MOTIONS
11-cv-01846-LKH (PSG)
sf-3117720
2
1
ORDER
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Based on the foregoing stipulation,
IT IS SO ORDERED. In their briefing, the court would appreciate the parties’ insight as
to the merit, let alone virtue, of the common practice exemplified here of filing a motion for
protective order in addition to an opposition to a motion to compel depositions. Put another way,
in disputing the relief sought by Apple, why does not Samsung merely oppose Apple's motion?
The court wishes to be clear that it is not – yet – criticizing Samsung's decision, but simply
wishes to understand the litigation perspectives of the learned counsel representing both parties in
this case.
9
10
11
Dated: 3/9/2012
HONORABLE PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
STIPULATION RE BRIEFING SCHEDULE FOR APPLE’S AND SAMSUNG’S APEX-RELATED MOTIONS
11-cv-01846-LKH (PSG)
sf-3117720
3
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?