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)

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
1 Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
[e-mail]
 50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
 [e-mail]
Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
 [e-mail]
555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
 Redwood Shores, California 94065
Telephone: [phone]
 Facsimile: [phone]
 Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
[e-mail]
 865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90017
 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
 CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION



APPLE INC., a California corporation,



Plaintiff,



vs.

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,


Defendants.

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
DECLARATION OF TIMOTHY
SHEPPARD IN SUPPORT OF
SAMSUNG’S OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S
MOTION FOR RULE 37(b)(2)
SANCTIONS FOR SAMSUNG’S
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF JANUARY
27, 2012 DAMAGES DISCOVERY ORDER
Date: April 3, 2012
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Place: Courtroom 5, 4th Floor
Judge: Hon. Paul S. Grewal





PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION


Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SHEPPARD DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S
OPPOSITION TO APPLE’S MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS

1

I, Timothy Sheppard, declare:

2

1.

I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration, and if called as

3 a witness, I could and would testify to the facts stated herein. This declaration is made in support
4 of Samsung’s Opposition to Apple’s Rule 37(b)(2) Motion Re Samsung’s Alleged Violation of
5 January 27, 2012 Damages Discovery Order.
6

2.

I am the Vice President of Finance and Operations at Samsung

7 Telecommunications America, LLC (“STA”).
8 person at STA other than STA’s CFO.

In that position, I am the senior-most finance

I am responsible for all accounting operations at STA and

9 also for both forward and reverse logistics.

Forward logistics is the process involved in

10 physically shipping products to customers, while reverse logistics is the process of receiving and
11 repairing products that are in need of repair. I have held my position at STA for four years.
12

3.

Prior to joining Samsung, I had already worked for over 15 years in various

13 financial roles in the private sector. Immediately prior to joining Samsung, I was the Financial
14 Controller for a venture capital company in Dallas, Best Merchant Partners.

Prior to that, I

15 worked for 10 years for a software company called i2 Technologies, ultimately holding the
16 position of Vice President of Finance.
17

4.

I have degree in mechanical engineering from the Imperial College of Science,

18 Technology and Medicine in London, England, and a Masters in Business Administration from the
19 Edinburgh Business School, Scotland. I also hold the equivalent of a CPA certification in the
20 United Kingdom.
21

5.

As a result of my position at STA, I am intimately familiar with how STA and

22 Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) maintain their financial and sales data, and the
23 reports generated therefrom.

I have also spoken with Mr. GiHo Ro, a Senior Manager in the

24 Business Operations Group, Mobile Communications Business, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
25 (“SEC”) (collectively with STA and SEA, “Samsung”), who was involved in gathering the
26
27
28

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-2SHEPPARD DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S
MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS

1

discussed herein and is familiar with SEC’s financial reports.

I thus believe the

2 statements herein with respect to SEC are true and correct.
3

6.

I have reviewed Apple’s Motion for Sanctions against Samsung, and the

4 Declaration of Eric R. Roberts in support thereof (“Roberts Declaration”).

Apple’s Motion and

5 the Roberts Declaration contain a number of incorrect statements and allegations about the
6

Samsung has produced in compliance with the Court’s Order of January 27,

7 2012.

It appears that most of these statements are the result of Apple filing its Motion and the

8 Roberts Declaration before taking my deposition on February 29, 2012, which addressed and
9 explained many of the questions raised. Because my deposition was taken the day after Apple
10 filed its Motion, had Apple waited just two days to file its Motion, it seems much of the parties’
11 and the Court’s time and resources could have been spared.
12

7.

In addition, on February 28, 2012, the same day Apple filed its Motion – but before

13 the Motion was filed – Samsung produced

that is

14 attached in hard copy as Exhibit A to the Roberts Declaration. A hard copy of the
15

is attached as Exhibit

16 A hereto.

I will refer to the

17 as the “

that is attached as Exhibit A to the Roberts Declaration
” and the

18 “

” The

that is attached as Exhibit A hereto as the
is almost

19 but addresses some of the very issues raised in the Roberts Declaration.
20

8.

On the same day that Samsung produced the

21 a

, it also produced

, which is attached in hard copy as Exhibit B hereto

22

While the

23
24 Samsung products, the
25 about

regarding the accused
provides
.

26
27
28

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-3SHEPPARD DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S
MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS

1

9.

Apple’s counsel questioned me extensively about all of these

2 my deposition on February 29, 2012.

(See Ex. C, 37:9-101:7.)

during

Accordingly, had Apple waited

3 two days to file its Motion so it could hear my answers to their questions about the
4 would have known that the

it

which is the subject of the Roberts Declaration,

5

Apple would have also received

6 answers to many – if not all – of Mr. Roberts’ questions through my deposition.

Nonetheless, for

7 the benefit of both the Court and Apple, I will attempt to address these issues yet again here.
8 Before I do so, however, I will provide some background
9

10.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

11.

19
20
21
22

12.

Accordingly, in all, Samsung has provided the following

23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-4SHEPPARD DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S
MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS

1
2
3

13.

The first purported problem that Mr. Roberts raises with respect to the

4

(Roberts Decl., 2:7.)

Mr.

5 Roberts, however, actually identifies only the following
6
7
8

(Id., 2:7-10.)
14.

It is my understanding that the

9
10
11
12

(See Exhibit A to the Roberts Decl., p. 15; see also Exhibit A hereto,

13

Although he had the opportunity to do so (he

14 questioned me for less than five hours), Apple’s counsel did not question me about this issue
15 during my deposition. Had he done so, I certainly would have explained this to him, and Mr.
16 Roberts would have realized that Samsung had in fact produced the information Apple seeks
17
18

15.

The second purported problem that Mr. Roberts raises with the

19

” (Roberts

20 Decl., 2:11.)
21

However, Mr. Roberts then immediately admits that “s
”

(Id., 2:11-12.) This is exactly the case here.

22
23
24
25

16.

26 identify
27
28

Again, Apple’s counsel had the opportunity during my deposition to ask me to
He did not do so. Had he asked me, I
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-5SHEPPARD DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S
MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS

1 certainly would have

and he would have

2 realized that Samsung had indeed produced the information that Apple seeks.
3 and attached hereto as Exhibit D,
4

17.

5

I have prepared

.

The third purported problem raised by Mr. Roberts with respect
is what he calls “

.”

(Roberts Decl., 2:14-16.)

By

6 this, Mr. Roberts means that the
7

However, the explanation for this is simple:

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

18.

Although he certainly could have done so, Apple’s counsel did not question me

17 about this issue during my deposition.

Again, if he had done so, I would have explained that the

18
19
20
21

19.

22 calls

The fourth issue Mr. Roberts raises regarding the
”

is what he

(Roberts Decl., 2:17-18.) By this, he seems to mean

23 that the
24
25

20.

The fifth purported problem that Mr. Roberts raises with the

26 is that
27
28

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-6SHEPPARD DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S
MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS

1

(Id., 2:19-20.) My understanding is that Apple recently deposed

2

and that Mr.

3

Had Apple waited to file its Motion until

4 after
5

explained that the

, Mr. Roberts would have had the information he seeks.
21.

The sixth purported problem that Mr. Roberts raises is that the

6
7
8

(Roberts Decl., 2:21-23.) As an initial matter, it is not clear to which

9

” or “

10 what type of

” Mr. Roberts is referring, or
.

More importantly, contrary to Mr. Roberts’

11 assertion, it is my understanding that Samsung has
12

, as discussed in the accompanying declaration of Joby Martin.

This includes

13
14

(See Exhibit B.)

Together with the

Samsung has

15 thus
16

.
22.

Mr. Roberts’ seventh purported problem with the

17

(Roberts Decl., 3:1.) However, as

18 I testified during my deposition, the
19

Indeed, although he

20 could have, Apple’s counsel did not even ask me at deposition
21
22

(See Ex. C, 60:5-12.)
23.

The eighth purported problem discussed in Mr. Roberts’ declaration is that the

23
24
25 3:5-7.)

” and “
”

(Roberts Decl.,

However, Apple’s counsel questioned me extensively about Samsung’s

26
27
28

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-7SHEPPARD DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S
MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS

1

during my deposition. (See Ex. C, 60:17-69:24, 89:6-99:14.)

In

2 essence,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

24.

As is evident from the above explanation,

15
Instead, I provided a detailed explanation during my deposition.

16

I

17 also explained in my deposition that
(See Ex. C, 65:10-21, 96:12-98:7.)

18
19

25.

Mr. Roberts’ ninth purported problem with the

20
21

(Roberts Decl., 3:8-9.)

22

Mr. Roberts describes this as
”

(Id., 3:9-10.)

23 Again, however, if Mr. Roberts had withheld judgment until after my deposition, he would have
24 understood there
25

26.

For example, in paragraph 19 of his declaration, Mr. Roberts “

26
27
28

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-8SHEPPARD DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S
MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS

1
2
3
4

(Roberts Decl., 78:15-16, 19-21.)
27.

However, as I explained in my deposition,

5
6
7

I also explained that the

8
9
10

(Ex. C, 72:23-76:10.)
28.

Similarly, as evidence of purported

Mr. Roberts complains that

11
12

(Roberts Decl., 7:17-18.) But, as I explained in my deposition,

13
14 101:7.)

(See Ex. C, 99:15The

15 Mr. Roberts seeks.
16

29.

Notably, even though he certainly had the opportunity to do so, Apple’s counsel did

17 not question me during deposition regarding any of the alleged

that Mr. Roberts

18 lists in paragraph 19 of his declaration.
19

30.

Mr. Roberts also complains that the

20

However, Samsung

21 has produced (I believe in response to Apple’s requests),
22

that provide

23

With respect to STA and SEA, these

24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-9SHEPPARD DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S
MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS

1
2
3

as requested by Apple.
31.

In paragraph 18 of his declaration, Mr. Roberts asserts that,

4
5
6
7

(Roberts Decl., 7:6-10.) Although Apple’s counsel did not question me about this

8 during my deposition, the explanation is actually quite simple:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

32.

Accordingly, Mr. Roberts’ assertion that

17
18

” is utterly false. As explained above,

19
20

Indeed, Mr. Roberts assertion is proven false by the fact

21
22

(See Ex. B at 1.)

The fact

23 that
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-10SHEPPARD DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S
MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS

1

33.

On the basis of these purported problems – each of which was either addressed in

2 the

, explained in deposition, or could have been so explained had I been

3 asked – Mr. Roberts opines that
4

” (Roberts Decl., 8:13-14.)

5 This is simply false.

As I explained in my deposition, and as I believed was explained in Mr.

6
7
8

34.

9 of

My understanding is that Apple previously complained that Samsung’s production
However,

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

35.

Finally, it is my understanding that Apple has now requested that Samsung

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-11SHEPPARD DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S
MOTION FOR RULE 37(B)(2) SANCTIONS