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

Filing 822

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Order, #2 [Redacted Public Version] Apple's Reply Brief, #3 [Redacted Public Version] Olson Reply Declaration, #4 Exhibit C to [Redacted Public Version] Olson Reply Declaration, #5 Exhibit E to [Redacted Public Version] Olson Reply Declaration, #6 Exhibit G to [Redacted Public Version] Olson Reply Declaration, *** DOCUMENT LOCKED [822-7] AT FILER'S REQUEST. *** #7 Exhibit I to [Redacted Public Version] Olson Reply Declaration, #8 [Redacted Public Version] Roberts Reply Declaration, #9 [Redacted Public Version] Kim Reply Declaration, #10 Exhibit 1 to [Redacted Public Version] Kim Reply Declaration, #11 Exhibit 2 to [Redacted Public Version] Kim Reply Declaration, #12 Exhibit 3 to [Redacted Public Version] Kim Reply Declaration, #13 Exhibit 4 to [Redacted Public Version] Kim Reply Declaration, #14 Exhibit 5 to [Redacted Public Version] Kim Reply Declaration, #15 Exhibit 6 to [Redacted Public Version] Kim Reply Declaration, #16 Exhibit 7 to [Redacted Public Version] Kim Reply Declaration, #17 Exhibit 8 Part 1 to [Redacted Public Version] Kim Reply Declaration, #18 Exhibit 8 Part 2 to [Redacted Public Version] Kim Reply Declaration, #19 Exhibit 11 to [Redacted Public Version] Kim Reply Declaration, #20 Exhibit 12 to [Redacted Public Version] Kim Reply Declaration, #21 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Jacobs, Michael) (Filed on 3/20/2012) Modified on 3/21/2012 (wv, COURT STAFF). Modified on 3/21/2012 (wv, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) hmcelhinny@mofo.com MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) mjacobs@mofo.com JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368) jtaylor@mofo.com ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363) atucher@mofo.com RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425) rhung@mofo.com JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530) jasonbartlett@mofo.com MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 WILLIAM F. LEE william.lee@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 60 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 526-6000 Facsimile: (617) 526-5000 MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180) mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 10 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC. 12 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 SAN JOSE DIVISION 17 APPLE INC., 18 19 20 21 22 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, 23 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) REPLY DECLARATION OF ERIK J. OLSON IN SUPPORT OF APPLE’S RULE 37(b)(2) MOTION RE SAMSUNG’S VIOLATION OF JANUARY 27, 2012 DAMAGES DISCOVERY ORDER Date: Time: Place: Judge: April 3, 2012 10:00 a.m. Courtroom 5, 4th Floor Hon. Paul S. Grewal Defendants. 24 25 26 REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION 27 28 REPLY OLSON DECL. ISO APPLE’S RULE 37(b)(2) MOTION RE VIOLATION OF JAN. 27 ORDER 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG) pa-1518381 1 I, Erik J. Olson, declare as follows: 2 1. I am a partner in the law firm of Morrison & Foerster LLP representing Apple in 3 this matter. I am licensed to practice law in the State of California. I have personal knowledge of 4 the facts set forth below, except where I note that I am relying on the work of others whom I 5 supervise. I make this declaration in support of Apple’s Reply in Support of Rule 37(b)(2) 6 Motion Re Samsung’s Violation of the January 27, 2012 Damages Discovery Order (“Rule 37 7 Motion”). 8 2. At my direction, an associate at Morrison & Foerster reviewed each of the 355 9 financial documents identified in Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Joby Martin in Support of 10 Samsung’s Opposition (Dkt. No. 801-9 (“Martin Declaration”)) to determine whether those 11 documents provided sufficient information to comply with the Court’s January 27, 2012 Damages 12 Discovery Order (Dkt. No. 673 (“Order”)). 13 14 3. The documents identified in Exhibit 1 to the Martin Declaration contain only two documents generated by Samsung Electronics Company (“SEC”). Those two documents are: 15 (a) An discussing 16 plans for improving inventory forecasting. A true and correct copy of the document, which 17 begins with the Bates number S-ITC-500005400, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 18 (b) A A true and correct copy of 19 the document, which begins with the Bates number S-ITC-500013442, is attached hereto as 20 Exhibit B. 21 4. The only other documents identified in Exhibit 1 of the Martin Declaration that 22 appear to contain SEC-specific sales, manufacturing costs, and cost of goods sold information are 23 the 24 discussed at length in the parties’ briefs. Only one of was produced to Apple by the court-ordered deadline of February 3, 2012. Two of 25 the 26 30(b)(6) deposition. (See Dkt. No. 801-9 ¶ 5.) Two additional spreadsheets were produced on 27 March 8—less than 24 hours before Jaehwang Sim’s 30(b)(6) deposition. The 28 were produced on February 28th, less than 24 hours before Timothy Sheppard’s were produced while I was on an airplane en route to Korea to depose REPLY OLSON DECL. ISO APPLE’S RULE 37(b)(2) MOTION RE VIOLATION OF JAN. 27 ORDER 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG) pa-1518381 1 1 Jaehwang Sim. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of an email exchange 2 among Marc Pernick (counsel for Apple) and Jon Steiger and Anthony Alden (counsel for 3 Samsung), dated March 8-9, 2012, in which Mr. Alden stated that Samsung intended to produce 4 an additional 14,000 pages of documents relevant to Mr. Sim’s deposition during the time that I 5 was en route to Korea. 6 5. Aside from the two SEC documents and the , the 7 remaining 346 documents identified in Exhibit 1 to the Martin Declaration were generated either 8 by or for Samsung Telecommunications America LLC (“STA”) or Samsung Electronics of 9 America (“SEA”). The vast majority of these documents—256 or roughly 72 percent—fall into 10 one of the 7 categories listed below. As detailed in subparagraphs (a) through (h) below, these 11 documents do not contain information sufficient to calculate Samsung’s consolidated profits for 12 infringing sales of the accused products in this litigation. 13 (a) —We located 102 14 reports among the documents identified on Exhibit 1 of the Martin Declaration similar to 15 Exhibit 5 attached thereto. These reports were prepared between 16 and they report on 17 18 19 20 , . These reports do not include information about SEC’s costs-ofgoods-sold, or information from which Samsung’s consolidated profits can be calculated. (b) —We located 67 reports of various kinds among the documents identified on Exhibit 1 of the Martin Declaration that are 21 22 23 24 25 26 They contain no information on sales by SEC or on the profits SEC recognizes through STA’s sale of the accused devices to any of the wireless service providers. (c) —We located 31 among the documents identified on Exhibit 1 of the Martin Declaration. Nearly 75% of 27 those reports were produced to Apple on March 8th—the last day of fact discovery and over a 28 month after the court-ordered deadline for production of financial information. (See Dkt. REPLY OLSON DECL. ISO APPLE’S RULE 37(b)(2) MOTION RE VIOLATION OF JAN. 27 ORDER 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG) pa-1518381 2 1 No. 801-9 ¶ 15 & Ex. 1— 2 Bates SAMNDCA00367810-SAMNDCA00368102 and SAMNDCA00368326- 3 SAMNDCA00369971.) Mr. Martin states in his declaration that “Samsung produced the 4 majority of its correspond to documents with beginning before February 3, 2012” and “produced additional 5 on March 8, 2012 when it discovered that some were missing from its 6 prior production.” Mr. Martin neglects to inform the Court, however, that Apple had already 7 discovered that numerous 8 asked Samsung specifically to produce “[m]onthly close reports for STA and SEA for 2009 to 9 2011” in a letter dated January 27, which Apple then asked about repeatedly on February 1, were missing from Samsung’s production, and 10 February 4, February 10, and February 12. (See Dkt. No. 759-4, Ex. 10 at 2; see also id. Ex. 11, 11 13, 15, 16). While these monthly closing reports contain financial information responsive to the 12 Order, the information is limited to STA and cannot be used to calculate Samsung’s consolidated 13 profits. 14 (d) —We located 23 15 16 among the documents identified on Exhibit 1 of the Martin Declaration similar to Exhibit 4 attached thereto. 17 18 19 20 Moreover, they contain no information that is specific to the accused devices, even for STA or SEA. 21 22 (e) —We located 20 documents among those identified on Exhibit 1 of the Martin Declaration discussing 23 These documents do not contain 24 any pricing, costs-of-goods sold, or profit information for any defendant entity. They cannot be 25 used to calculate Samsung’s consolidated profits. 26 (f) —We located 27 10 28 Declaration, similar to Exhibit 9 attached thereto. These reports contain financial information among the documents identified on Exhibit 1 of the Martin REPLY OLSON DECL. ISO APPLE’S RULE 37(b)(2) MOTION RE VIOLATION OF JAN. 27 ORDER 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG) pa-1518381 3 1 responsive to the Order, and include 2 The reports, however, , do not contain information on 3 specific phones, do not contain information about SEC’s financials, and they cannot be used to 4 calculate Samsung’s consolidated profits. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 (g) 12 —We located 4 among the documents identified on Exhibit 1 of the Martin Declaration. 13 14 15 They do not contain information about SEC’s financials, and they cannot be used to calculate Samsung’s consolidated profits. 16 17 (h) —The remaining 102 documents listed in Exhibit 1 of the Martin Declaration fall into numerous, scattershot categories including: 18 19 As with the categories 20 discussed above, none of these documents provide information on SEC’s costs of goods sold, nor 21 do they provide information that would allow Apple to calculate Samsung’s consolidated profits. 22 6. Furthermore, a full 33 percent (over 3,700 pages) of the documents listed in 23 Exhibit 1 of the Martin Declaration fall outside the period of alleged infringing activity—Q2 24 2010 through the present—and therefore are not relevant to Apple’s damages case. 25 7. In short, the 355 documents identified in Exhibit 1 of the Martin Declaration do 26 not contain sufficient information to calculate Samsung’s consolidated profits for infringing sales 27 of the accused products. 28 REPLY OLSON DECL. ISO APPLE’S RULE 37(b)(2) MOTION RE VIOLATION OF JAN. 27 ORDER 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG) pa-1518381 4 1 8. The total page count of the financial documents identified on Exhibit 1 of the 2 Martin Declaration that were produced to Apple on March 8th—nearly a month after the Court- 3 ordered production deadline—is 3,509 pages. March 8th was also the close of fact discovery. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit D are true and correct excerpts from the March 10, 2012 deposition of Jaehwang Sim. 10. Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a letter from Mr. Alden to Mr. Pernick dated February 24, 2012. 11. Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of Apple’s Tenth Rule 30(b)(6) Deposition Notice to Samsung, served on February 12, 2012. 12. Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of a letter from Mr. Alden to Mia Mazza (counsel for Apple) dated March 8, 2012. 13. Attached hereto as Exhibit H are true and correct copies of two emails from Sara Jenkins (counsel for Samsung) to Apple’s counsel dated March 8, 2012. 14. Attached hereto as Exhibit I are true and correct excerpts from the February 29, 2012 deposition of Timothy Sheppard. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this 20th day of March, 2012 at San Francisco, California. /s/ Erik J. Olson Erik J. Olson 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REPLY OLSON DECL. ISO APPLE’S RULE 37(b)(2) MOTION RE VIOLATION OF JAN. 27 ORDER 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG) pa-1518381 5 1 2 ATTESTATION OF E-FILED SIGNATURE I, Michael A. Jacobs, am the ECF User whose ID and password are being used to file this 3 Declaration. In compliance with General Order 45, X.B., I hereby attest that Erik J. Olson has 4 concurred in this filing. 5 Dated: March 20, 2012 /s/ Michael A. Jacobs Michael A. Jacobs 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REPLY OLSON DECL. ISO APPLE’S RULE 37(b)(2) MOTION RE VIOLATION OF JAN. 27 ORDER 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG) pa-1518381 6

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?