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

Filing 795

MOTION for Sanctions Apple's Rule 37(b)(2) Motion Based on Samsung's Violation of the Court's December 22, 2011 Order Regarding Source Code filed by Apple Inc.(a California corporation). Motion Hearing set for 4/24/2012 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal. Responses due by 3/23/2012. Replies due by 3/30/2012. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 3/9/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

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’S RULE 37(b)(2) MOTION
BASED ON SAMSUNG’S
VIOLATION OF THE COURT’S
DECEMBER 22, 2011 ORDER
REGARDING SOURCE CODE

Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED ORDER] GRANTING RULE 37(B)(2) MOT. BASED ON VIOLATION OF DEC. 22 ORDER RE: SOURCE CODE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3115299

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and Local Rule 37-4, Apple Inc. (“Apple”)

2

seeks certain remedies based on Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.’s, Samsung Electronics

3

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

4

material violations of the Court’s December 22, 2011 Discovery Order (Dkt. No. 537). That

5

Order required Samsung to produce certain source code by December 31, 2011.

6

Having considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, and GOOD

7

CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, IT IS ORDERED that Apple’s Rule 37(b)(2) Motion Based

8

on Samsung’s Violation of the Court’s December 22, 2011 Order Regarding Source Code is

9

GRANTED.

10

The Court issues the following findings and orders:

11

1.

The Court finds that Samsung violated this Court’s December 22, 2011 Order by

12

failing to produce source code for the accused functionalities for all versions of the accused

13

products by December 31, 2011.

14
15
16

2.

Samsung and its experts are precluded from presenting, using, or relying on any

source code that was not timely produced under the Court’s December 22, 2011 Order.
3.

For purposes of assessing infringement by any version of a Samsung accused

17

product, the product version for which Samsung timely produced source code shall be deemed

18

representative of all versions of that product.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21
22

Dated: April _____, 2012
HONORABLE PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED ORDER] GRANTING RULE 37(B)(2) MOT. BASED ON VIOLATION OF DEC. 22 ORDER RE: SOURCE CODE
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3115299