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

Filing 801

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.(a Korean corporation), Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Attachments: #1 Declaration, #2 Proposed Order, #3 Exhibit Public Redaction Version of Samsung's Opposition, #4 Declaration Gordon Dec ISO Samsung's Opposition, #5 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Gordon's Dec, #6 Exhibit Exhibit 2 to Gordon's Dec, #7 Exhibit Exhibit 3 to Gordon's Dec, #8 Exhibit Exhibit 4 to Gordon's Dec, #9 Declaration Martin Dec ISO Samsung's Opposition, #10 Exhibit Exhibit 1 to Martin's Dec, #11 Exhibit Exhibit 10 to Martin's Dec, #12 Exhibit Exhibit 11 to Martin's Dec, #13 Exhibit Exhibit 12 to Martin's Dec, #14 Exhibit Exhibit 13 to Martin's Dec, #15 Declaration Price's Dec ISO Samsung's Opposition, #16 Exhibit Exhibit 2 to Price's Dec, #17 Exhibit Exhibit 5 to Price's Dec, #18 Exhibit Exhibit 6 to Price's Dec, #19 Exhibit Exhibit 8 to Price's Dec, #20 Exhibit Exhibit 11 to Price's Dec, #21 Exhibit Exhibit 13 to Price's Dec, #22 Declaration Sheppard's Dec ISO Samsung's Opposition, #23 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 3/13/2012)

Download PDF
1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151) 2 charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com 50 California Street, 22nd Floor 3 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 875-6600 4 Facsimile: (415) 875-6700 5 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129) kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com 6 Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603) victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com 7 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor Redwood Shores, California 94065-2139 8 Telephone: (650) 801-5000 Facsimile: (650) 801-5100 9 Michael T. Zeller (Bar No. 196417) 10 michaelzeller@quinnemanuel.com 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor 11 Los Angeles, California 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 12 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 13 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 14 INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION 17 CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK APPLE INC., a California corporation, 18 Plaintiff, SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S 19 MOTION FOR RULE 37(b)(2) vs. SANCTIONS FOR SAMSUNG’S 20 ALLEGED VIOLATION OF JANUARY SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a 27, 2012 DAMAGES DISCOVERY ORDER 21 Korean business entity; SAMSUNG Date: April 3, 2012 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New Time: 10:00 a.m. 22 York corporation; SAMSUNG Place: Courtroom 5, 4th Floor TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, Judge: Hon. Paul S. Grewal 23 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 24 Defendant. 25 26 PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION 27 28 02198.51855/4645882.3 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page 3 4 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT....................................................................................................... 1 5 BACKGROUND............................................................................................................................... 2 1.  Apple’s Requests for Production (“RFPs”) of Samsung Financial Documents and Samsung’s Offer to Produce Information and Documents Responsive to Apple’s RFPs...................................................... 2 8 2. Apple Rejects Samsung’s Compromise and Moves to Compel.................... 3 9 3. Samsung’s Opposition to Apple’s Motion to Compel .................................. 5 10 4. The Court’s January 27, 2012 Discovery Order ........................................... 5 11 5. Samsung’s Compliance with the January 27, 2012 Discovery Order........... 6 12 6. Apple’s Repeated Late Production of Documents Ordered Produced By February 3rd Pursuant to the January 27, 2012 Order.............................. 9 6 7 13 ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 11 14 I. LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 11 II. SAMSUNG COMPLIED WITH THE COURT’S DISCOVERY ORDER ....................... 12 15 16 A.  Samsung Complied With The Order to Produce..................................................... 12 B. Apple’s Assertions About Errors in the February Spreadsheet Are Either Erroneous or Mooted by Samsung’s Subsequent Production of Revised and Supplemental Spreadsheets ..................................................................................... 13 17 18 19 1.  The February Spreadsheet (and the Subsequent Spreadsheets) Properly and Accurately Respond to Apple’s Request for a Spreadsheet Drawn From Samsung’s System of Record of Accounting Information .............................................................................. 14 2. The Spreadsheet Does Not Improperly Omit Information About Five Galaxy Products .......................................................................................... 14 20 21 22 23 (a)  Galaxy S II Skyrocket, Galaxy S II Epic 4G, and Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE.......................................................................................... 15 (b) Galaxy S II (T–Mobile edition) and Galaxy S II (AT&T edition) ............................................................................................ 16 24 25 26 3.  Samsung Has Already Produced the Supplemental Spreadsheets Providing Line Item Detail for Operating Expenses ................................... 17 4. Samsung Is Providing Information Correlating Specific Phone Models with Specific Carriers..................................................................... 17 27 28 02198.51855/4645882.3 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -iSAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 5. Samsung Is Explaining Why Sections Do Not “Add Down” ..................... 17 2 6. Samsung Has Already Produced the Revised Spreadsheet in Which the Sum of the 29 Product Tabs Equals the Amounts Shown on the Total Tab ..................................................................................................... 18 7. Samsung’s Accounting Representative Has Already Explained Why the Product Sales Figures in the Spreadsheets Are Not “Missing or Illogical”...................................................................................................... 18 8. Samsung’s Accounting Representative Has Already Explained in His Deposition and Does So Again in His Declaration Samsung’s Method for Allocating Expenses to Specific Products................................ 19 3 4 5 6 7 C.  8 Apple’s Other Assertions that Samsung Has Withheld Documents It Was Ordered to Produce Are Equally Meritless ............................................................. 20 9 1.  Samsung Neither Committed Nor Was Ordered to Produce Costed Bills of Materials for the Accused Products................................................ 20 2. Flux Analysis Reports are Clearly Not Encompassed Within the Order............................................................................................................ 21 3. “Pumi” Reports Are Not Encompassed Within the Order .......................... 21 10 11 12 13 III.  14 15 ANY TECHNICAL VIOLATION OF THE DISCOVERY ORDER THAT THE COURT MIGHT FIND WAS NOT COMMITTED WILLFULLY, IN BAD FAITH, OR THROUGH FAULT SO AS TO CREATE “EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES” JUSTIFYING THE EVIDENTIARY AND PROCEDURAL SANCTIONS REQUESTED BY APPLE .......................................................................... 22 16 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................... 25 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 02198.51855/4645882.3 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -iiSAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 3 Page Cases 4 Computer Task Group, Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2004)..............................................................................................11, 24 5 Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 6 285 F.3d 899 (9th Cir. 2002)......................................................................................................11 7 In re Heritage Bond Litig., 223 F.R.D. 527 (C.D. Cal. 2004) ...............................................................................................11 8 Lundy Enterprises, LLC v. Wasau Underwriters Insurance Company, 9 No. 06-3509, 2010 WL 323571 (E.D. La. Jan. 21, 2010) ....................................................24, 25 10 Statutes 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A)(iii).........................................................................................................24 12 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i) - (ii) ..................................................................................................11 13 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A) ..................................................................................................11, 22, 24 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c).........................................................................................................................24 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 02198.51855/4645882.3 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -iiiSAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 2 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Samsung has fully complied with its obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil 3 Procedure and the Court’s January 27 Order. Samsung offered to produce and did produce, 4 pursuant to the Order, documents concerning revenue, cost of goods sold (“COGS”), operating 5 expenses, profitability, and U.S. market launch dates, along with . 6 The Court should reject Apple’s complaint – that it did not get the laundry list of unnecessary 7 financial documents that Samsung never offered to produce and the Court never compelled 8 Samsung to produce – and deny Apple’s request for sanctions. 9 Apple’s motion lacks merit for a number of reasons. First, Apple disingenuously points to 10 its proposed order which the Court never adopted. Instead, the Court ordered Samsung to 11 produce what Samsung offered as a compromise in its January 10 letter. To seek sanctions on the 12 rest of the relief that Apple sought, but did not obtain, constitutes a collateral attack on the Court’s 13 January 27 order and violates Samsung’s rights. 14 Second, in its motion to compel which led to the January 27 Order, Apple sought a 15 comprehensive electronic spreadsheet containing various financial data. Samsung produced the 16 17 18 Apple is not entitled to complain that it does not like the content of 19 Samsung’s financial records. Nor can it seek sanctions because of the alleged inconsistencies or 20 incompleteness of the information. Any questions regarding such alleged inconsistencies can be 21 resolved by depositions, which is what Apple had a full opportunity to do when it questioned 22 Samsung’s 30(b)6 witnesses. Moreover, Samsung supplemented and clarified the in 23 order to meet Apple’s ever-increasing demands and attempt to resolve the issue short of motion 24 practice. Such good-faith efforts cannot constitute the basis for sanctions. 25 Third, in addition to the reliable and informative , Samsung has produced a 26 multitude of other regularly kept business records documenting various pertinent aspects of 27 Samsung’s financial performance associated with the accused products. Thus, Apple’s 28 suggestion that all Samsung effectively has done is produce one 02198.51855/4645882.3 is simply incorrect. Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -1SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 Finally, to the extent that Samsung has produced any compelled documents after the 2 February 3, 2012 deadline, it did so in good faith to provide Apple greater detail and to correct 3 discrepancies or errors discovered in its earlier productions (just like Apple has done). Apple 4 itself has repeatedly produced key financial documents under the same Order late, in some cases 5 almost five weeks late. In no event has Samsung disobeyed the Order willfully, in bad faith or 6 through fault, and thus no “extreme circumstances” exist here that would justify the evidentiary 7 and procedural sanctions requested. For all these reasons, Apple’s motion should be denied. 8 BACKGROUND 9 1. Apple’s Requests for Production (“RFPs”) of Samsung Financial 10 Documents and Samsung’s Offer to Produce Information and 11 Documents Responsive to Apple’s RFPs 12 In August and October 2011, Apple served RFPs seeking wide-ranging categories of 13 financial documents from Samsung.1 On January 10, 2012, Samsung’s counsel wrote a letter to 14 Apple’s counsel describing what had been produced up to that time, and what further categories of 15 financial documents Samsung agreed to produce as a way of resolving the parties’ dispute about 16 outstanding RFPs: 17 Financial Documents 18 Samsung has confirmed that much of the financial information Apple seeks has already been produced to Apple in the ITC and N.D. Cal. matters. Specifically, Samsung has produced documents showing 19 20 Samsung also has produced 21 22 Samsung has also produced 23 production for completeness shortly. 24 In addition to this prior production, to the extent it has not already been produced, Samsung further agrees to supplement this production with responsive, nonprivileged documents reflecting Samsung will be supplementing this 25 26 27 28 02198.51855/4645882.3 1 Dkt. No. 759-04a; Dkt. No. 759-04b. Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -2SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 documents sufficient to show the date each accused product became available to U.S. markets (at least for accused products that were actually sold or offered for sale in the U.S.), and any non-privileged IP valuations for the patents-in-suit. We anticipate substantially completing this production by February 3. If we are able to produce this information sooner, we will do so.2 2 3 4 2. 5 Apple Rejects Samsung’s Compromise and Moves to Compel Apple rejected Samsung’s compromise proposal and, on January 11, 2012, moved to 6 compel.3 In its motion, Apple complained that the financial reports Samsung had previously 7 produced were “not drawn consistently from Samsung’s system of records, and no single type of 8 report exists in sufficient numbers to cover the relevant period.”4 In his declaration in support of 9 Apple’s motion, Erik Olson discussed Samsung’s system of records at length, noting that: 10 Such systems store data and can routinely be used to prepare financial statements or financial reports through an electronic interface. Such reports can be prepared either based on a standardized template or prepared based on ad hoc criteria selected by a user. Such systems reduce the need to ‘print’ certain financial data as a hard copy. Nonetheless, they are designed to provide consistent, and often immediate, access to updated reports for members of a company’s finance and management team.5 11 12 13 14 Apple emphasized the fact that “Samsung has the ability to generate reports reflecting 15 financial data simply by pressing a few buttons,“6 making it clear that the target of its discovery 16 requests was reports generated by Samsung’s (which, as explained 17 below, Samsung in fact produced). 18 In connection with its motion to compel, Apple submitted a proposed order consisting of 19 nine pages of various document categories for which Apple sought to compel production.7 More 20 than two pages of the proposed order covered categories of requested financial documents. 21 Specifically, Apple moved to compel eight separate categories of financial documents: 22 A. Documents evidencing Samsung’s U.S. and worldwide revenue, unit sales and selling price for the accused products (smartphones and tablets), including: 23 24 2 Dkt. No. 642-05 at 1-2. Apple Inc.’s Motion to Compel Production of Documents and Things, January 11, 2012 (Dkt. No. 613-01) (“Motion to Compel”), at 19:14-15, Declaration of Christopher E. Price ("Price 26 Decl."), Ex. 12. 4 Dkt. No. 613-01 at 19:14-15, Price Decl., Ex. 12. 5 27 Declaration of Erik J. Olson in Support of Motion to Compel (Dkt. No. 615), ¶ 4, Price Decl., Ex. 13. 6 28 Dkt. No. 613-01 at 21:13-14, Price Decl., Ex. 12. 7 Dkt. No. 616. 25 02198.51855/4645882.3 3 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -3SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 1. Samsung’s U.S. and worldwide revenues for the accused products (1) per smartphone or tablet (2) per carrier (3) per quarter. 2 3 2. Samsung’s U.S. and worldwide unit sales for the accused products (1) per smartphone or tablet (2) per carrier (3) per quarter. 4 3. Samsung’s U.S. and worldwide average selling price for the accused products (1) per smartphone or tablet (2) per carrier (3) per quarter. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 B. Documents sufficient to show the date when each accused product was introduced into the U.S. market. C. Reports showing gross profit and Samsung’s cost of goods sold: 1. For each accused product, costed bills of materials and financial reports provided to U.S. or corporate management reflecting Samsung’s calculation of its gross margin for the accused products from June 2009 to the present. 2. To the extent the reports are not prepared on a product-by-product basis, reports reflecting gross margins or gross profit consolidated for the accused products, for tablets and for smartphones or for Galaxy S and Galaxy SII line of phones as reflected on a quarterly or monthly basis. 12 13 14 15 3. Based on standard accounting and financial conventions, these reports should show both standard costs for the components that make up the phones and allocations of other expenses (such as freight, variances, and manufacturing overhead) to calculate a consolidated cost of goods sold. D. smartphones: Reports reflecting operating costs and profitability with respect to 16 17 18 1. Consolidated reports provided to U.S. and corporate management reflecting any expenses not included in costs of goods sold that Samsung incurs or allocates to U.S. smartphone or tablet products, including any research and development expenses, sales and marketing expenses, and general and administrative expenses. 19 20 2. Consolidated reports that reflect how such expenses for the accused products compare to U.S. expenses for mobile phones more generally and/or to worldwide expenses. 21 22 3. Consolidated reports on operating profit for any of the accused phones, for smartphones, and for mobile phones more broadly reflecting the foregoing expenses. 23 24 25 26 27 28 02198.51855/4645882.3 E. Audited or unaudited financial reports for each entity named as a defendant in this case and for each Samsung entity that sells any of the accused products, audited (or, if audited are unavailable, unaudited) financial reports (including at a minimum an income statement, balance sheet, cash flow statement and all associated notes) for each quarter or fiscal year ending on or after March 31, 2009. F. Documents relating to any financial valuation of the intellectual property in suit. The foregoing should include any reports on in-process research and development calculations that include technology related to any accused products, Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -4SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 any valuation used for balance sheet valuations, amortization, or a write-off of intangible assets. 2 3 G. Documents sufficient to show relevant expense for research and development and to design around any patent, including: 4 1. Any consolidated reports on the expense Samsung incurred to develop any of the accused products. 5 6 2. Any reports or financial information that reflect the actual or projected expense to design around any patent. 7 H. Any quarterly, annual or multi-year business plans prepared for the accused products or the divisions of Samsung that sell the accused products.8 8 3. 9 Samsung’s Opposition to Apple’s Motion to Compel On January 17, 2012, Samsung filed its opposition to Apple’s motion.9 In its opposition, 10 Samsung reaffirmed that it had already agreed to produce the following categories of financial 11 documents to resolve the dispute over Apple’s outstanding RFPs: 12  13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 4. The Court’s January 27, 2012 Discovery Order On January 27, 2012, this Court issued its Order Re Discovery Motions (“Order”) 21 22 resolving motions filed by both parties. In Section D.4 of that Order, entitled “Sales and 23 financial information relevant to establishing damages,” the Court ruled as follows: Apple seeks a number of categories of sales and marketing information, including U.S. and worldwide sales and revenues, selling price per accused product, gross margin, expenses and operating profit, and Samsung’s audited or unaudited financial reports. Apple argues that Samsung’s production to date has provided scattered and piecemeal financial information that does not offer any consistent record for Apple to draw from. Samsung does not dispute that sales and profitability information is 24 25 26 27 28 02198.51855/4645882.3 8 9 10 Dkt. No. 616. Dkt. No. 642-3. Dkt. No. 642-3 at 14. Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -5SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 relevant to Apple’s damages, if any. Samsung has agreed to supplement its production to date and provide responsive documents to all of the categories listed by Apple.[fn 34] 2 3 The court finds Samsung’s proposed production to be sufficient to meet Apple’s legitimate requests for this category of documents.11 4 5 Footnote 34 of the Order reads: “See Docket No. 642 at 14; Docket No. 642-1 (Jan. 10 letter).”12 6 “Docket No. 642 at 14” is page 14 of Samsung’s opposition to Apple’s motion to compel, in 7 which Samsung listed the six categories of documents and information that it had offered to 8 produce in its January 10 letter. “Docket No. 642-1 (Jan. 10 letter)” is the January 10 letter from 9 Samsung’s counsel. 10 Notably, the Court did not quote from or cite to the two pages worth of categories of 11 documents or information specified in Apple’s proposed order. Nor did the Court refer at all to 12 any comments about any topic made by either party or the Court at the January 19, 2012 hearing 13 on Apple’s motion.13 14 The Order compelled production of the pertinent information and documents to begin on a 15 rolling basis and conclude by February 3, 2012.14 16 5. 17 Samsung’s Compliance with the January 27, 2012 Discovery Order Samsung has abided by the Court’s Order directing Samsung to produce the categories of 18 financial documents it had agreed to produce, which the Court specifically found to be sufficient 19 to meet Apple’s requests for financial documents. Samsung’s combined productions in this 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 02198.51855/4645882.3 11 Dkt. No. 673 at 15:14-23 (emphasis added). Id. at 15 n.34. 13 Id. at 15:14-23. In that regard, Apple includes several snippets of comments made at the hearing by Samsung’s counsel to suggest that Samsung’s counsel agreed at the hearing to produce every single document requested by Apple. See, e.g., Motion at 5:4-10, 8:23-27. Apart from the fact that the Court’s Order did not incorporate any representation made by Samsung’s counsel at the hearing, it is clear that Samsung’s counsel’s representations about what Samsung had agreed to produce matched exactly what Samsung had agreed to produce in its January 10th letter and in its opposition. Samsung’s counsel said precisely that at the hearing: “So everything that he’s saying is wrong with our offer, I don’t agree with. And I think the offer speaks for itself which is in the January 10th letter and also listed again in our opposition brief.” Transcript of Proceedings, CV-11-1846-LHK, January 19, 2012, at 169:5-9, Declaration of Erik J. Olson (“Olson Decl.”) (Dkt. No. 759-4), Price Decl., Ex. 8. 14 Dkt. No. 673 at 2:5-7. 12 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -6SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 action and in the two ITC actions15 total over 12,000 pages worth of financial documents, 2 including containing information from Samsung’s 3 4 Samsung’s production of documents falling within 5 the categories of documents covered by the Order are summarized as follows:  6 Documents Reflect Samsung produced 3, 2012, 7 8 Additionally, Samsung has produced numerous documents created in the ordinary course of business reflecting and documents showing 9 10  11 12 In response to Apple’s requests for more Samsung produced two s 13 14 15 Apple’s Motion distinguishes between documents produced with ITC Bates numbers and those with N.D. Cal. Bates numbers. See, e.g., Motion at 15:8-20. This is a distinction with no 15 difference. The protective order in this action provides that documents produced in the two ITC actions pending between the parties are automatically deemed produced in this action. Dkt. No. 16 687 at ¶ 22. Thus, Apple’s attempt to isolate Samsung’s production of financial documents with N.D. Cal. Bates numbers paints an incomplete and misleading picture of Samsung’s production. 16 17 Declaration of Joby Martin (“Martin Decl.”), ¶ 2 & Ex. 1. 17 18 19 Sheppard Decl., ¶¶ 31-32. As expla 20 21 Sheppard Decl., ¶¶ 32, 35. Therefore, in order to satisfy Apple’s requests for per-product data, the pertinent information had to b from 22 t 23 Id. In his deposition, Jaehwan 24 25 Deposition of Jaewhang Sim, March 10, 2012 (“Sim Depo.”), at 8:1126 25, 35:6-12, 103:12-104:16, Declaration of John S. Gordon (“Gordon Decl.”), ¶ 9 & Ex. 6. 18 Martin Decl., ¶ 7 & Ex. 2. 19 27 Sheppard Decl., ¶¶ 10-11. See 28 Sheppard Decl., ¶ 11. 02198.51855/4645882.3 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -7SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 2 In addition to th 3 These documents contain 4 5  6 7 8  Documents sufficient to show when ea e to 9 10 In addition, Samsung provided Apple with this information— for both the accused products, as well as products embodying the Samsung patentsin-suit—in response to Apple’s Interrogatory No. 14.26 11  12 Non-privileged valuations for the pat search, Samsung has determined that it asonable 13 14 Samsung has revised the on several occasions to provide Apple with 15 greater clarity, detail, and accuracy. On February 10, 2012, Samsung produced a 16 27 17 On 18 February 28, 2012, Samsung produced a 19 8 20 21 Finally, as noted above, Samsung produced the 22 detailed information about , which contain more 29 23 24 20 25 22 26 24 27 26 28 28 02198.51855/4645882.3 21 23 25 27 29 Martin Decl., ¶ 6. Sheppard Decl., ¶ 30. Martin Decl., ¶ 8 & Ex. 3. Id. Id., ¶ 9 & Ex. 4. Id., ¶ 10 & Ex. 5. Id., ¶ 11 & Ex. 6. Id., ¶ 4. Id., ¶ 5. Id., ¶ 6. Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -8SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 31 10 11 Samsung has, in fact, produced more than just the specific categories of documents it 12 agreed, and was accordingly ordered, to produce. 13 —documents 14 which Apple has explicitly admitted were not covered by the January 27th Order.32 15 16 34 17 18 6. Apple’s Repeated Late Production of Documents Ordered Produced By February 3rd Pursuant to the January 27, 2012 Order 19 20 Apple has belatedly produced numerous financial documents that the Court ordered Apple 21 to produce by February 3, 2012.35 Examples of such late production include the following: 22 30 23 6. 24 25 26 27 28 02198.51855/4645882.3 Sim Depo. at 35:13-36:25, 43:20-45:21; 114:1-115:15, 183:15-185:2, Gordon Decl., Ex. 31 Sim Depo. at 45:22-48:23; Gordon Decl., Ex. 6. Martin Decl., ¶¶ 12-13 & Exs. 7-8. 33 Id., ¶ 14 & Ex. 9. 34 Id., ¶ 15. 35 Dkt. No. 673 at 2:5-7, 21:11-22 (ordering Apple to produce by February 3, 2012 relevant financial documents needed to assess damages, as well as business plans and strategies requested by Samsung). The Court also ordered Apple to perform queries of its financial system of record to the level of granularity requested by Samsung, including providing data on a model or product basis if possible). Samsung’s requests for production, Nos. 6-8, 25, 29, 42-44, 54-55, 69, 116, 130-134, 175, and 252-54 were repeated in its motion to compel. Dkt. No. 603 at 26-40. 32 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -9SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 • March 8 Production of Financial Documents. From March 8 to 9, almost five weeks after the February 3rd deadline, Apple produced approximately 40,000 documents, comprised of over 470,000 pages. While Samsung’s review of this production is ongoing, to date it has revealed that various financial documents encompassed by the Court’s Order have just now been produced. This includes • A March 8 Production of a New Version of Apple’s particularly egregious example is Apple’s late production of a in relation to its iPhone, iPad, and iPod products. Apple produced an early version of this before the February 23, 2012 deposition of its Rule 30(b)(6) witness on financial topics, Mark Buckley.37 More than two weeks later, on the last day of discovery, and more than a month after the February 3rd deadline, Apple produced 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 • 14 15 This information was produced two weeks after the deposition of Apple’s 30(b)(6) witness on financial topics. 16 • 17 February 16, 2012 Production of Financial Documents. On Fe almost two weeks after the February 3rd deadline, Apple produced and other financial information, including 18 Apple admitted in 19 36 APLNDC-Y0000148289-8458, Price Decl., Ex. 1; 3/8/2012 email from Ken MacCardle, 20 Price Decl., Ex. 2; APLNDC-Y0000232431-2446, Price Decl., Ex. 10; 3/8/2012 (10:45 p.m.) email from Mollie B. Gabrys, Price Decl., Ex. 11. 37 21 Exhibit 18 to the February 23, 2012 Deposition Transcript of Mark Buckley, Price Decl., Ex 3. 38 22 APLNDC-Y0000232396-2430 (Apple Inc. Royalties Chart), Price Decl., Ex. 4; 3/8/2012 (10:05 p.m.) email from Mollie B. Gabrys, Ex. 5. 39 23 To add insult to injury, Apple’s for his declaration that Samsung has not provided 24 Declaration of Eric R. Roberts in Support of Motion to Enforce January 27, 2012 Order as to Financial Documents (“Roberts er is that after Samsung 25 originally produced to Apple a , Apple refused to produce any document in native format if it can be printed out in legible paper form. Feb. 10, 2012 letter 26 from Jason Bartlett g to resume producing . Thus 27 far, howe 40 APLNDC-WH-A0000024846-4851, Price 28 Decl., Ex. 7; March 7, 2012 letter from Matthew Hoff to Rachel Kassabian, Ex. 8. 41 Feb. 23, 2012 letter from Jason Bartlett to Diane C. Hutnyan, Price Decl., Ex. 9, at 10. 02198.51855/4645882.3 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -10SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 response to Samsung’s meet and confer letter that these documents were responsive to the Court’s January 27 Order but produced, for the most part, almost two weeks after February 3.42 2 3 ARGUMENT 4 I. LEGAL STANDARD 5 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2)(A), if a party fails to obey a discovery 6 order, the court may issue “further just orders” that may include, among other specified sanctions, 7 the following: 8 9 (i) directing that the matters embraced in the order or other designated facts be taken as established for purposes of the action, as the prevailing party claims; 10 (ii) prohibiting the disobedient party from supporting or opposing designated claims or defenses, or from introducing designated matters in evidence . . . . 11 Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(b)(2)(A)(i) - (ii). 12 Under Ninth Circuit law, such harsh evidentiary or procedural sanctions are “appropriate 13 only in ‘extreme circumstances’ and where the violation is ‘due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault 14 of the party.’” Fair Housing of Marin v. Combs, 285 F.3d 899, 905 (9th Cir. 2002); see also In re 15 Heritage Bond Litig., 223 F.R.D. 527, 530 (C.D. Cal. 2004) (preclusion of defenses or evidence as 16 sanction under Rule 37(b)(2) is “appropriate only in extreme circumstances and where the 17 violation is due to willfulness, bad faith, or fault of the party.”) (quoting Fair Housing of Marin). 18 In deciding whether to grant a motion for sanctions under Rule 37(b)(2)(A) for 19 noncompliance with a discovery order, a court should consider five factors: “(1) the public’s 20 interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the 21 risk of prejudice to [the party seeking sanctions]; (4) the public policy favoring disposition of 22 cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Computer Task Group, 23 Inc. v. Brotby, 364 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2004). “Where a court order is violated, the first 24 two factors support sanctions and the fourth factor cuts against a default. Therefore, it is the third 25 and fifth factors that are decisive.” Id. 26 27 42 Id., Price Decl., Ex. 9, at 10. In the letter, Apple claimed that it had previously produced 28 these documents in the ‘794 ITC matter and therefore, “is already in the possession of Samsung’s counsel.” 02198.51855/4645882.3 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -11SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 II. SAMSUNG COMPLIED WITH THE COURT’S DISCOVERY ORDER 2 The overwhelming thrust of Apple’s Motion is that Samsung supposedly violated the 3 Court’s Order because Samsung did not produce various specific types of documents that Apple 4 requested and listed in its proposed order.43 Apple even goes so far as to say that the Order 5 required Samsung to “produce everything responsive to Apple’s request.”44 6 Apple’s Motion suffers from a fundamental misconception: it is written as though the 7 Court had signed Apple’s lengthy and micro-detailed proposed order (or adopted those two pages 8 of the proposed order in toto), and required Samsung to produce every specific type of document 9 that Apple wanted. That is not what happened. Instead, the Court found that the categories of 10 documents Samsung had agreed to produce (the six categories quoted above), which address each 11 category of documents the Court described as being sought by Apple (“sales and marketing 12 information, including U.S. and worldwide sales and revenues, selling price per accused product, 13 gross margin, expenses and operating profit, and Samsung’s audited or unaudited financial 14 reports”) were sufficient to satisfy Apple’s need for documents to calculate alleged damages.45 15 A. 16 Samsung has produced what it agreed to produce and what the Court accordingly ordered 17 it to produce. Samsung Complied With The Order to Produce That production supplied Apple with each of the categories of documents the 18 Court described as being sought by Apple – sales and marketing information, pricing, gross 19 margin, expenses, operating profit, and financial statements. 20 As explained above in detail in Section 5 of Background, Samsung has produced 21 , which contain information 22 along with other documents, which provide Apple admissible evidence 23 showing the following aspects of Samsung’s financial operations: 24 (1) detailed 25 including 26 27 28 02198.51855/4645882.3 43 44 45 See, e.g., Motion at 6:3-10, 10:8-20, 11:11-26, 12:1-9, 13:13-14:9. Id. at 13:22-25. See Dkt. No. 673 at 15:14-23. Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -12SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 (2) 2 (3) 3 even though not part of 4 what Samsung originally agreed or was ordered to produce; 5 (4) for the divisions responsible for the accused products, 6 7 8 9 (5) 10 (6) , as well as an answer to Apple’s Interrogatory No. 5, 11 showing launch dates for the accused products, which allow Apple to see when each accused 12 product became available on the U.S. market. 13 Thus, Apple has gotten the documents Samsung agreed to produce and the Court ordered 14 Samsung to produce. In fact, in response to Apple’s requests, Samsung has produced more than 15 what it was ordered to produce. It is evident that Apple is simply dissatisfied with the result of its 16 previous motion to compel and is artificially and unfairly attempting to construe that order to be 17 much broader than it is. 18 B. 19 Apple’s Assertions About Errors in the Are Either Erroneous or Mooted by Samsung’s Subsequent Production of 20 21 22 attacks on the aration of Eric Roberts, a plethora of . We address here the primary criticisms Apple raises in its 23 brief and rely on the accompanying Timothy Sheppard Declaration to address the remaining 24 criticisms that Roberts asserts in his declaration but Apple does not discuss in its Motion. 25 26 27 28 02198.51855/4645882.3 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -13SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 1. The (and the ) 2 Properly and Accurately Respond to Apple’s Request for a 3 Drawn From Samsung’s 4 ation Apple complains that Samsung should not have produced the it did, and 5 should instead have produced materials created in the ordinary course of business or given to 6 management or the “more detailed documents created by Samsung’s financial professionals that 7 Apple’s proposed order identified.”46 It is Apple, not Samsung, playing a game of bait-and8 switch. As explained in Background Section 2 above, Apple expressly demanded in its 9 underlying motion to compel, .47 That is exactly what Samsung produced. 10 11 Samsung, in the ordinary course of business, does not 12 Therefore, the 13 information Apple requested 14 which is exactly what Apple 15 demanded in its underlying motion to compel. 16 17 18 19 20 48 21 22 2. 23 The Does Not Improperly Omit Information About Five Galaxy Products 24 Apple claims that the is incomplete in that it does not cover the 25 following five products: the Galaxy S II Skyrocket, the Galaxy S II Epic 4G, the Galaxy S II (T– 26 Mobile edition), the Galaxy S II (AT&T edition), and the Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE (collectively, “the 27 46 28 48 47 Motion at 10:21-11:2. See Dkt. Nos. 613-01, 15. Sheppard Decl., ¶ 32; Sim Depo. at 8:11-25, 35:6-12, 103:12-104:16; Gordon Decl., Ex. 6. 02198.51855/4645882.3 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -14SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 five devices”).49 Apple is wrong. First, three devices – the Galaxy S II Skyrocket, Galaxy S II 2 Epic 4G and Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE – were not accused instrumentalities covered by Apple’s 3 motion to compel. And second, the in 4 fact cover the remaining two devices – the Galaxy S II T-Mobile edition and the Galaxy S II 5 AT&T edition. 6 (a) 7 Galaxy S II Skyrocket, Galaxy S II Epic 4G, and Galaxy Tab 10.1 LTE In Apple’s August 2011 Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions 8 served pursuant to Patent Local Rules 3-1 and 3-2, Apple identified 26 specific devices. None of 9 the five devices was mentioned, even though Apple did identify other Galaxy devices (the Galaxy 10 S (i9000) and Galaxy S 4G).50 In Apple’s August 2011 Addendum to its Disclosure of Asserted 11 Claims and Infringement Contentions, Apple identified one additional specific device – the 12 Galaxy S II (which accounts for two of the five devices -- the Galaxy S II (T–Mobile edition) and 13 the Galaxy S II (AT&T edition)). None of the remaining three devices was identified.51 Thus, it is clear that the Court’s Order52 did not cover three of the five Galaxy devices 14 15 Apple complains about in its motion. The fact that the three devices were not covered by Apple’s 16 motion to compel or the Order is made even clearer by Apple’s attempt on March 4th, after it filed 17 its sanctions motion, to add two of the three devices – the Galaxy S II Skyrocket and the Galaxy S 18 II Epic 4G Touch – to the list of accused instrumentalities by serving an amended interrogatory 19 answer. Such an amendment obviously would not be necessary if the Skyrocket and Epic 4G 20 Touch devices were already covered by either the Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 02198.51855/4645882.3 49 Motion at 11:3-8; Dkt. No. 759-2. Apple’s Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, served August 26, 2011, Gordon Decl., Ex. 1. Patent Local Rule 3-1(b) requires the “Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions” to contain, inter alia, the following information: “Separately for each asserted claim, each accused apparatus, product, device, process, method, act, or other instrumentality (‘Accused Instrumentality’) of each opposing party of which the party is aware. This identification shall be as specific as possible. Each product, device, and apparatus shall be identified by name or model number, if known.” Obviously the three devices had specific names and/or model numbers that Apple never mentioned in its Disclosures. 51 Apple’s Addendum to its Disclosure of Asserted Claims and Infringement Contentions, served August 26, 2011, Gordon Decl., Ex. 2. 52 Dkt. No. 673 at 15:14-23. 50 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -15SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 Contentions or the Addendum to that Disclosure.53 It is frankly outrageous that Apple has moved 2 for sanctions on the basis that Samsung’s did not produce documents concerning products that 3 Apple never alleged to be infringing until well after the Court’s Discovery Order, in fact, not even 4 until after Apple had already filed its sanctions motion. 5 (b) 6 Galaxy S II (T–Mobile edition) and Galaxy S II (AT&T edition) The by Samsung on February 3rd contains 7 54 8 55 9 On February 28, 2012, Samsung 10 produced the 6 11 Furthermore, Apple deposed Samsung’s Rule 30(b)(6) accounting representative, 12 Timothy Sheppard, about both (identified as Exhibits 1920 and 1922 in his 13 deposition).57 While Apple now complains that the 14 Apple never 15 bothered to ask Samsung in meet and confer58, and never bothered to ask Mr. Sheppard at his 16 deposition,59 whether the 17 In fact, as explained above, 18 In short, contrary to Apple’s contention, the . is not incomplete with 19 respect to the five Galaxy devices. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 02198.51855/4645882.3 53 See Apple’s Amended Objections and Response to Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.’s Interrogatory No. 5 to Apple, Inc., served March 4, 2012, Gordon Decl., Ex. 3, at 10:1-2, 8-9, 1617. Additional proof of the point is found in Apple’s proposed January 2012 stipulation, which was never executed, and which would have added the Galaxy S II Skyrocket as an accused instrumentality. Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Regarding Adding Accused Products, Gordon Decl., ¶ 6 & Ex. 4. 54 Martin Decl., ¶ 3. 55 Sheppard Decl., ¶ 14. 56 Martin Decl., ¶ 5; Sheppard Decl., ¶ 14. 57 Gordon Decl., ¶ 7. 58 Martin Decl., ¶ 21. 59 Gordon Decl., ¶ 7. Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -16SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 3. Samsung Has Already Produced the 2 Providing 3 Apple complains that the 4 60 5 However, in response to Apple’s requests for more minute detail concerning 6 Samsung produced fails to Samsung agreed to produce on March 8, 2012.61 The 7 8 62 9 10 4. 11 Samsung Is Providing Information Correlating Specific Phone Models with Specific Carriers Apple demands to know which models were sold by which carriers.63 Apple had the 12 13 opportunity to question Mr. Sheppard at his February 29th deposition about which accused smart 14 phones are sold to which carriers. It failed to do so (even though Apple’s counsel ended the 15 deposition less than five hours after it began). 16 64 17 However, to avoid yet another dispute, Samsung is 18 voluntarily producing the specific information to Apple.65 19 5. 20 Samsung Is Explaining Why Apple complains that 66 21 22 23 24 25 al 60 26 61 27 63 28 65 02198.51855/4645882.3 62 64 66 Motion at 11:18-26. Martin Decl., ¶ 5. Sheppard Decl., ¶ 30. Motion at 12:1-9. Sheppard Decl., ¶¶ 15-16. Id., ¶ 16 & Ex. D. Motion at 12:21-22. Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -17SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 2 3 4 .67 5 6 Apple’s counsel did not question Mr. Sheppard about this issue at deposition. 7 8 .68 9 10 6. Samsung Has Already Produced the 11 12 That was a discrepancy as noted by Apple,69 and it was corrected in the 13 14 produced on February 28, 2012. 15 7. Samsung’s Accounting Representative Has Already Explained Why the 16 Product Sales Figures in the 17 Illogical” 18 Are Not “Missing or Apple does not specify which of the nine bullet points in paragraph 5 of Mr. Roberts’ 19 declaration it is alluding to as the support for its critique that “product sales figures in many cases 20 are allegedly missing or illogical,”70 and it provides no explanation of the specific criticism that it 21 has here.71 As best as Samsung can divine, Apple is possibly alluding to bullet points 5-9 of that 22 paragraph, but those do not specifically reference any succeeding paragraphs that actually explain 23 24 25 26 27 28 02198.51855/4645882.3 67 Sheppard Decl., ¶ 17. Sheppard Decl., ¶ 18. 69 Motion at 12:24-25. 70 Motion at 12:26-27. 71 Apple does the same thing, even more egregiously, with respect to the conclusory allegation that the February Spreadsheet “fails to provide the information necessary for Apple to complete a comprehensive damage analysis (Roberts Decl. ¶¶ 5-6).” (Motion at 7:1-3) As noted above, paragraph 5 of Mr. Roberts’ declaration is a collection of bullet point summary assertions without reference to any of the paragraphs of his declaration that provide any detailed explanation or analysis of the criticism made in conclusory fashion in paragraph 5. Paragraph 6 is already addressed herein. 68 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -18SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 in detail the criticism. Based on Samsung’s best guess, the criticisms Apple is raising here are the 2 ones that Mr. Sheppard answers in paragraphs 20-27 of his accompanying declaration. 3 8. 4 Samsung’s Accounting Representative Has Already Explained in His Deposition and Does So Again in His Declaration Samsung’s 5 6 Apple criticizes Samsung because the February Spreadsheet does not itself explain how 7 Samsung allocates costs and expenses to the accused products.72 At Mr. Sheppard’s deposition, 8 Apple’s counsel questioned him extensively about Samsung’s 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 As evident from the above explanation, the 21 is not something that could be easily explained within the 22 hemselves or 23 within any financial documents. Mr. Sheppard provided a detailed explanation of Samsung’s at his deposition (and again in his declaration). He also explained that 24 25 the above-described 73 26 27 28 02198.51855/4645882.3 72 Motion at 15:8-20. Sheppard Decl., ¶¶ 23-24, see also Sim Depo. at 8:11-25, 120:24-121:9; 122:19-123:8, Gordon Decl., Exh. 6. 73 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -19SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 C. Apple’s Other Assertions that Samsung Has Withheld Documents It Was 2 Ordered to Produce Are Equally Meritless 3 1. 4 Samsung Neither Committed Nor Was Ordered to Produce Costed Bills of Materials for the Accused Products 5 Apple claims that Samsung reneged on its purported promise to produce “costed” bills of 6 materials.74 The short answer to that complaint is that Samsung did not promise, and it had no 7 obligation, to produce such documents. 8 Up until the time Apple moved to compel production of financial documents, the parties’ 9 discussion of bills of materials was in the context of Apple’s requests for source code and 10 documents showing the structure and operation of Samsung’s products’ touchscreens—not 11 financial documents.75 In a letter Apple sent just prior to the parties’ January 6, 2012 lead 12 counsel meet and confer on its motion to compel, Apple explained that it requested bills of 13 materials in satisfaction of RFP No. 240, which sought documents “concerning the design, 14 manufacture, specifications and operation of the touch screens (including the display and touch 15 sensor panels) on the Products at Issue.”76 At the lead counsel meet and confer, the only 16 discussion of bills of materials related to the touchscreens of the accused products.77 17 Then, in Samsung’s January 10, 2012 letter sent after the meet and confer, Samsung’s 18 counsel committed in the “Technical Documents” section of the letter (on page 2) to “produce 19 ” The letter mentions nothing at all in 20 the “Financial Documents” section of the letter (on page 1) about bills of materials, and says 21 nothing in either section about producing “costed” bills of materials, containing a breakdown of 22 cost for every component of a device.78 Samsung’s opposition to Apple’s motion to compel 23 tracked the January 10 letter—committing to produce 24 in satisfaction of Apple’s requests for technical documents, and mentions nothing 25 26 74 27 75 28 77 02198.51855/4645882.3 76 78 Motion at 5:7-9. Martin Decl., ¶¶ 16-17 & Exs. 10-11. Id., at ¶¶ 18-19 & Exs. 12-13 (emphasis added). Id., at ¶ 20. Dkt. No. 642-05 at 1-2. Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -20SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 about costed bills of material.79 At the hearing on Apple’s motion, counsel for Samsung never 2 mentioned “costed” bills of materials or agreed to produce “costed” bills of materials.80 3 Similarly, the Court’s January 27th Order mentions bills of materials only in the section of the 4 Order concerning technical documents, not in the section concerning financial documents.81 5 Samsung never obligated itself to produce costed bills of materials and the Court did not 6 order it to produce them. Samsung produced and it produced 7 voluminous information about It has 8 done all it was required to do with respect to producing such product cost information. 9 2. Reports are Clearly Not Encompassed Within the Order 10 Apple claims that Samsung prepares 11 that it supposedly was obligated to produce.82 That claim is groundless. The deposition 12 testimony that Apple relies on (pages 28:11-31:12 of Mr. Sheppard’s January 24, 2012 deposition) were not encompassed within the January 27th Order. 13 demonstrates that the 14 15 83 16 Such reports are not covered by the Order and are not essential in any 17 case in preparing damages opinions as to particular accused products. They are not 18 19 3. 20 Apple also claims Reports Are Not Encompassed Within the Order reports are covered by the order.84 21 even less encompassed within the Order than reports are probably are. 22 23 24 25 79 Dkt. No. 642 at 7:6-11, 14:3-15:8. Transcript of Proceedings, CV-11-1846-LHK, January 19, 2012, at 168:22-169:3, Olson 26 Decl. (Dkt. No. 759-4), Ex. 8. 81 Dkt. No. 673 at 11:11-17 & n.23, 15:14-23. 82 27 Motion at 13:7-8, 12-15. 83 Deposition of Timothy Sheppard, January 24, 2012 (“Sheppard 1/24/12 Depo.”), at 30:728 31:12, Olson Decl., Ex. 9. 84 Motion at 13:9-15. 02198.51855/4645882.3 80 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -21SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 5 1 Such reports were not promised by Samsung or ordered 2 by the Court to be produced. 3 III. ANY TECHNICAL VIOLATION OF THE DISCOVERY ORDER THAT THE 4 COURT MIGHT FIND WAS NOT COMMITTED WILLFULLY, IN BAD FAITH, 5 OR THROUGH FAULT SO AS TO CREATE “EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES” 6 JUSTIFYING THE EVIDENTIARY AND PROCEDURAL SANCTIONS 7 REQUESTED BY APPLE 8 This is very clearly not a case in which it would be appropriate to impose the draconian 9 sanctions sought by Apple, which include (but are not limited to): (1) precluding Samsung from 10 offering at trial its own essential damages-related evidence, or from cross-examining Apple’s 11 damages experts about any matters addressed in their required expert reports, (2) reversing the 12 Court’s operative Discovery Order, and now compelling the production of every category of 13 documents listed in Apple’s harassing proposed discovery order, instead of the categories offered 14 by Samsung in its Opposition and January 10 letter, as originally ordered, and (3) allowing 15 Apple’s damages experts to offer opinions at trial outside of any type of written report or 16 deposition concerning any documents listed in Apple’s proposed discovery order. Under Rule 17 37(b)(2)(A), such harsh and potentially case-dispositive sanctions should be imposed only under 18 “extreme circumstances” in which a party violated a discovery order willfully, in bad faith, or 19 through fault. Imposition of such sanctions here would be manifestly unjust, as explained below. 20 Apple asserts that purported delay in production by Samsung has prejudiced Apple by 21 preventing it from obtaining the documents and information necessary for its experts to prepare 22 their reports by March 22, 2012.86 Apple’s assertion is groundless for a number of reasons. 23 First, Apple is responsible for the timing of its Motion. After the parties reached an impasse at 24 the February 14, 2012 meet and confer, Apple waited two weeks to file the instant motion.87 25 26 27 28 02198.51855/4645882.3 85 86 87 Sheppard 1/24/12 Depo. at 78:14-16, Olson Decl., Ex. 9. Motion at 14:13-16:18. Martin Decl., ¶ 22. Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -22SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 Second, Apple did not even attempt to discuss with Samsung a stipulation for an expedited 2 briefing schedule that could possibly have allowed its Motion to be heard much sooner than April 3 3rd. In fact, Apple never even informed Samsung that it would be filing this Motion.88 Third, Apple has repeatedly ignored the Court’s February 3rd production deadline and has 4 5 not been sanctioned, even though Apple has been almost five weeks late in producing a large 6 number of financial documents going to the heart of Samsung’s damages calculations, e.g., (a) 7 reports showing , (b) 8 (c) 9 10 11 Moreover, Apple is in no position to complain about perceived inaccuracies and inconsistencies in 12 Samsung’s production, much less Samsung’s production of updated financial information. As 13 discussed above, Apple produced a dramatically weeks after its Rule 14 30(b)(6) designee was deposed on financial topics, 89 15 16 Finally, Apple has had since early February virtually all the financial information 17 necessary to calculate damages. The production of 18 (or, at Apple’s request, hardly constitute the type of egregious conduct that would warrant the 19 extraordinary and harsh sanctions Apple seeks here. Apple has repeatedly missed deadlines 20 because of having to fix errors or provide greater detail to comply with the Court’s Order, and the 21 Court has imposed no evidentiary or procedural sanctions on Apple. In any event, the clarifying, 22 correcting, or more fully detailed documents about which Apple complains have been produced at 23 least 2-3 weeks before expert reports are due, and the case is still months from trial. 24 Apple has not demonstrated that the information and documents produced by Samsung 25 will not allow Apple’s damages experts, working diligently, to finish their reports by March 22nd. 26 And even if Apple’s experts swear that they cannot do so, they certainly have not established that 27 88 Id., ¶ 23. Compare Exhibit 18 to the February 23, 2012 28 Price Dec., Ex 3 with APLNDC-Y0000232396-2430 4. 02198.51855/4645882.3 89 Mark Buckley, ), Price Decl., Ex. Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -23SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 a brief extension of time to complete their reports would destroy the Court’s scheduling of the 2 case. By no means has Apple shown that there is a high risk of prejudice caused by any conduct 3 of Samsung that arguably could be considered sanctionable, and that no less drastic sanctions are 4 available to address any delay in production that might have occurred. Under such circumstances, 5 Rule 37(b)(2)(A) sanctions should not be imposed. See Computer Task Group, 364 F.3d at 1115. 6 Lundy Enterprises, LLC v. Wasau Underwriters Insurance Company, No. 06-3509, 2010 7 WL 323571, at *1, *3 (E.D. La. Jan. 21, 2010), cited by Apple in support of its sanctions request 8 does not warrant any different result. First, it is an unpublished Eastern District of Louisiana 9 case, consisting of a short order that does not cite a single judicial authority as support for its 10 ruling; it hardly constitutes persuasive authority for this Court. Second, the order there was 11 premised on the “automatic sanction” of exclusion under Rule 37(c) for failing to comply with 12 Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii).90 Id. at *2. No such rule of automatic exclusion applies here because Rule 13 37(c) does not apply; Samsung is not alleged to have failed to comply with Rule 26(a) or (e) as 14 required for application of the presumptive automatic exclusion sanction of Rule 37(c). Unlike 15 Rule 37(c), Rule 37(b)(2)(A) is a rule of discretion without any presumed automatic exclusion of 16 evidence. Third, the order there is bereft of any analysis that would provide this Court guidance 17 in applying Rule 37(b)(2)(A). There is no discussion of whether the court found that the plaintiff 18 making the claim in fact possessed the back-up documentation, and if he did not, how he could 19 have prepared the spreadsheets, and if he did, why he did not produce it.91 Nor is there any 20 discussion of whether the plaintiff 21 22 a showing, made by Samsung in this case, provides more than a 23 24 25 90 Rule 26(a)(1)(A)(iii) requires a party claiming damages to produce “a computation of each category of damages claimed by the disclosing party--who must also make available for 26 inspection and copying as under Rule 34 the documents or other evidentiary material . . . on which each computation is based . . . .” 91 27 The court simply made the conclusory statement that the plaintiff had “not demonstrated that the failure to provide the foundational evidence for the spread sheets is harmless or is 28 substantially justified,” as required to avoid automatic exclusion under Rule 37(c) for violations of Rule 26(a) or (e). Id. at *3. 02198.51855/4645882.3 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -24SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS 1 sufficient foundation for use of the at trial. In short, Lundy Enterprises provides no 2 basis for imposing the harsh sanctions requested by Apple. 3 4 CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, Apple’s Motion for Sanctions should be denied. 5 DATED: March 12, 2012 Respectfully submitted, 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP By: /s/ Victoria Maroulis Charles K. Verhoeven Kevin P.B. Johnson Victoria F. Maroulis Michael T. Zeller Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 02198.51855/4645882.3 Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK -25SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS

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?