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

Filing 857

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Supplemental Response to Apple's Corrected Reply In Support of Rule 37(b)(2) Motion, filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Public Redacted Version of Samsung's Supplemental Response, #2 Declaration of Christopher Price In Support of Samsung's Supplemental Response, #3 Exhibit A (filed under seal), #4 Exhibit B (filed under seal), #5 Exhibit C (filed under seal), #6 Exhibit D, #7 Exhibit E, #8 Exhibit F, #9 Exhibit G, #10 Exhibit H, #11 Exhibit I (filed under seal), #12 Exhibit J (filed under seal), #13 Exhibit K (filed under seal), #14 Declaration of Joby Martin In Support of Samsung's Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal, #15 Proposed Order Granting Samsung's Administrative Motion to File Documents Under Seal)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 4/7/2012)

1 11 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SUL Ll VAN , LLP
Charles K. Verh잉ven 떠 arNo.170151)
211 charlesverhoeven@quif!1)-ernanuel. com
50 California Street 22 11(] Floor
3 11 San Francisco , C어 ifornia 94111
Telephone: [phone]
411 FacsÎmile: [phone]
5 11 KevinP.B. Johnson(BarNo. 177129)

611 kevinjohnson@quiIlllernan뼈 202603)
Victona F. MàÍoulis (Bar No.
[e-mail]
711555 Twin Dolphin brive , 5'" Floor
Redwood Shores. California 94065-2139
8 l1 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: (650) 801δ100
9
Michael T. Zeller (BarNo. 19641 η
10 11 michaelzeller@quinnemanuel. com
865 S. Figueroa St , 10th Floor
11 11 Los Ang e1es , California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
1211 FacsÎmile: [phone]
13 11 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO ’
LTD .. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA
1411 INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

”
κ

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
η

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALl FORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

ω

APPLE INC. , a California corpαat:t on，
m
ω

”
m

Plaintiff,

m

vs

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. , LT D., a
21 11 Kαean business ent:i ty; SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC , a New
2211 York corporation; SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
23 11 LLC , a Delaware limited liability company,

”
a

CASE NO. ll-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’ S SUPPLEMENTAL
RESPONSE TO APPLE ’SCORRECTED
REPLY IN SUPPORT OF RULE 37(b)(2)
MOTION RE: SAMSUNG ’SALLEGED
VIOLATION OF JANUARY 2τ 2012
DAMAGES DISCOVERY ORDER
Date:
Tirne:
Place:
Judge:

Apri19 , 2012
10:00 a.ITI
Courtroorn 5. 4th Floor
Hon. Paul S. Grewal

Defendant

g
%
ω

낀

PUBLIC REDACTED

%
ω
02198.5185:.'4 69295 2.5

[

ase No.

ll-cv-Ol846-LH1ζ

SAMSUNG ’ S SUPPL마RIALRESPONSE TO APPLES REPLYISOM〔 TIONFORRgk53%없

l

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

E짧E

3

4 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
5 ARGUMENT
I

APPLE ' S NEW ARGUMENTS CONTRADIcr ITS EARLIER
REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT

II

CONTRARY TO APPLE'S DISINGEN\

6
7

빼빼』숱èLY

8
9

SUNGDID

III

2

술해iiATES MR SIM?S TE 암IMONY REGARDING_

4

10
IV

TO TESTIFY REGARDING THE

5

II

v

SAMSUNG HAS INVESTED AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF TIME AND
CARE IN PRODUCING FINANCIAL INFORMATION .................................................. 5

VI

CONTRARY TO APPLE'S ASSERTION THE COURT DID NOT COMPEL
SAMSUNG TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS SHOWING CONSOLIDATED
PROFITS .............................................................................................................................. 6

VII

12

SAMSUNG WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO PRODUCE FINANCIAL
DOCUMENTS CONCERNING UNACCUSED PRODUcrS ........................................... 7

13
14

,

15
16
17 VIII

THE SANcrlONS DEMANDED BY APPLE ARE INAPPROPRIATE OR
MOOT .................................................................................................................................. 9

18
CONCLUSION

10

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
021
98.5185:.'4692952.5

-1Case No. ll-cv-018μ6-LH1ζ
SAMSUNG ’ S SUPPL마RIALRESPONSE IOAPPLES REPLYISOM〔 TIONFORRgk53%없

l

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2

E짧E

3

ι심~

411 Carl Zeiss Vision Int'l GmbH v.

Signet Armo.시ite， Inc. ，
2010 WL 743792 (S.D.Cal. 2010)

8

5
611

Fair Housing ofMarin v. Combs ,
285 F.3d-899 (9th Cir. 2002)

9, 10

711Henσ v. Gill Indus. , Inc. ,

983 F.2d 943 (9th Cir. 1993)

9

In re Heritage BondLitigation
223 F .R.-D. 527 (CD~ Cal. 2004)

9

8
911

l0llNa끼 Bank v. Germain

503 U.S. 249 (1 992)
11
1211

4

The Coryn Groμ!p 11, LLC v. o.c. Seacrets, Inc. ,
2011 WL 862729 (D. Md. March 10, 2011)

3, 7

13
S잭쁘뜨S

u

”

15U.S.C

S117(a)

3

κ

35 U.S.C

S 289

3

ω

η
m
ω

”

m

m
낀

2

”
a
”
a
g
%
ω

낀
%
ω
02 198.5185:.'469295 2.5

-11-

Case No.

ll-cv-Ol846-LH1ζ

SAMSUNG ’ S SUPPL마RIALRESPONSE TO APPLES REPLYISOM〔 TIONFORRgk53%없

1 11

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

211

Apple ' s Reply Brief contains nurnerous factual misstaternents, αnissioI1S， and non-

3 11 sequiturs.

Samsung r않pectfiùly submits this Supplernental Briefto correct the rnost egre밍ous

411 of Apple's misstaternents and to update the Court on events that have occurred since Apple filed
5 11 its Reply Brie f.

Sarnsllllg expended trernendous t:i rne and resources providing financial

6 11 inforrnat:i on to Apple.

Yet Apple's Reply Brief rnakes clear that nothing will ever be enough for

711Ap미e ， and that it is rnore interested in trying to gain an unfair and unwarranted strategic

8 11 advantage than in obtaining discoverable inforrnat:i on
Apple's rnot:i on started as out as one thing and has now turned into sornething cornpletely

911

Ap미 e initially corn뼈ned that Samsung had violated the Court's January27, 2012

10 11 differenl.

11 11 Order by αoducing oJÙy one docurnent on February 3, 2012
12
13

Having now realized this

1411 allegation is demonstrably incαrect， Apple has changed its cornplaint to focus on the purporπ
따
ted
비11，UI
15 뻐
5 빠
I

16 11 testimony
17
More

18

impoπantly though, the

fact that Apple now has gripes - albeit

19 11 ent:i rely baseless ones - with the reliability of Samsllllg's doclllTI ents has nothing to do with
2011 whether Samsllllg cornplied with the Court's Order, which Apple now irnplicitly concedes it did.
낀

2

”
a
μ

””
I

.

욕RG끄맥 ENT

APPLE ’ S NEW ARGUMENTS CONTRADICT ITS EARLIER
REPRESENTATIONS TO THE COURT
Apple's Reply Brief is riddled with rnisstaternents of fact and arglllTIents that are in direct

2511 contradict:i on to Apple's earlier representat:i ons to the Court. For example , Apple cornplains that
%
by Samsung pursuant to the Court' s J뻐uary 27 , 2012 O r d e r _
ω
낀
갱

021
98.5185:.'4692952.5

-1Case No. ll-cv-018μ6-LH1ζ
SAMSUNG ’ S SUPPL마RIALRESPONSE IOAPPLES REPLYISOM〔 TIONFORRgk53%없

,, 1

2

report

frαn

Yet, Apple previously told the Court that what it sought was a

Sarnsllllg'

‘'prepared either based on a

standar이 zed tern미 ate

or

3 prepared based on ad hoc criteria selected by a user ι Apple even proclairned that it had
4 prcxluced exactly that kind of docurnent to sat:i sfy its own φscovery obligat:i ons. 3

6

corn미 ains

that Sarnsllllg has not expended sufficient effort to produce the

But, in its

Sirnilarly, Apple

5

origin어

rnot:i on to cornpel , Apple just:i:fi ed its broad requests by

7
Now, Apple tells the Court

8
9 grollllds for sanct:i ons

1s

Apple's constantly shift:i ng approach shows that no rnatter what

10 inforrnat:i on Sarnsung provides, Apple will go back to the Court asking for sornething different
11

CONTRARY TO APPLE ’ S DISINGENUOUS ASSERTION , SAMSUNG DID NOT

11.

12
On reply, Apple cornplains that the March

13
14
15
16

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

1

Reply at 4
Id 께 4
M 깨 10
4
26
Dkt. No. 613-1 at 21 (emphasis added)
5
Reply at 6
6
27
Dkt. No. 801-11 , Declarat:i on ofTirn 폐 ly Sheppard (“ Sheppard Decl.") at 께 30
7
March 10, 2012 Deposit:i on Transcript of Jaehwang Sirn (“March 10 Sim Depo.") ,
28 Declarat:i on ofChristopher E. Price (“Price Decl η ， Ex. 1 at36:1-25
。
Id. at 184:20-185:2
02198.5185:.'4692952.5
-?_
Case No. ll-cv-01846-LH1ζ
SAMSUNG ’ S SUPPL마RIALRESPONSE IOAPPLES REPLYISOM〔 TIONFORRgk53%없
2

25

3

l

2
3

4
5
6

7
8
9

m
n
η

”
n
””

”
Apple points to no reason why 1his 1hird-p아ty inforrnat:i on is relevant to its damages case

16 11

1711 The language ofthe Lanham Act is clear that, llllder certain lirnited circurnstances , a successfiù
18 11 plaint:i ff in a tradernark infringernent ac t:i on rnay recover the “defendl띠，t’ s profits ," and its init:i al
19 11 burden is to prove the “ defendant ’ssales." 15U.S.C.

S 117(a)(emphasisadded).

Thestatute

20 11 providing for the recovery of design patent damages is equally clear. The accuβed design patent
21 11 infringer ‘ shall be liable to the owner to the e있ent of his total profit" 35 U.S.C.

S 289 (em마laSlS

22 11 adcl닝 d)
In three r Ollllds ofbriefing , Apple has identified no legal basis-nor is there any-for it to

23 11
24

See The

25

CαynGr ω
IpII， UCv

2611 OC Seacret.κ Inc. , 2011 WL 862729 , at *9 (D. Md. March 10, 2011)(ruling that 1hird-떠ty

2711 subsidiaries' profits is irrelevant and preju이cial under the Lanham Act if not cOImected to the
28
02198.5185:.'4692952.5

9

10

Id
M ‘ rch 10 Sirn Depo. , Price Decl. , Ex. 1 앞 114:7-115:15.

CaseNo.ll-cv-0184μHK

SAMSUNG ’ S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO APPLE'S REPLY ISO MOTION FOR RULE 37(B )(2)
SANCTIONS

1 11 narned parent's profits and loss잉:); see a/sa Nat'/ Bank v. Germain , 503 U.S. 249, 253-254 (1 992)
2 11 (“[C] ourts rnust presurne that a legislature says in a statute what it rneans and rneans in a statute
3 11 what it says there. ")
Finally, con1r아Y to Apple's rhetoric, Samsung has hidden nothing. The ori밍n어

411

511._.πoduced

by Sarnsllllg contains the inforrnat:i on

611._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ arld is available for Apple's use
which includes these ent:it:i es' profitS. 11

711
811 III.

APPLE MISSTATES M R. SIM ’STESTIMONY

911

_
Apple 떠Is the Court in its Reply that Mr. Sim test:i마d that the February 2 8 _

1011

11 11 was created for the purpose of rernoving details
η

”
n
””

”
κ
ω

η

But Samsung was never ordered to provide that inforrnat:i on 뻐d

1811 notably, Apple fails to provide any reason why it is relevant to a damages analysis. 14
It is also simply unσue that Samsung' s attomey insσucted Mr. Sirn not to answer

19 11

2011 regarding

Apple omits that Sarnsung's attomey stated

낀

2

”
a
μ

g
%

”
”ι

ω

낀
갱
02198.5185:.'4 692952. 5

””
”
”

See Expert Report o fT erry L. Musika, CPA (“Mu잉 ka Report") , Price Decl., Ex. C at 50
Dkt No. 801-11 , Sheppard Decl. at 께 7 ， 10
See SAMNDCA00372946. Price Decl.. Ex. K
Jan. 27 Order, Dkt No. 673 at 15

16

1 11 And, in fact , M r. Sim φd provide test:i rnony
2

3
4
511IV,

M R, SHEPPARD DID NOT REFUSE TO TESTIFY REGARDING THE

6
711

Apple tells the Court that Mr
This too is incorrect. Mr. Sheppard provided

8
9
10
11
1211V

SAMSUNG HAS INVESTED AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF TIME AND CARE

13

IN PRODUCING FINANCIAL INFORMATION

14

Apple's Reply clairns
But this erroneous content:i on is based on repeated

15

Sirns's de JXl sit:i on tes t:i rnony.

16

For

17
18
19
20
21
22
16 See , e. g., March 10 Sim Depo. , Ex. 1 at 130:18-19, 13 1:3 -8; March31 , 2012 Deposition
Trawcript of Jaehwang Sirn (“M아ch 31 Sim Depo. "), Price Decl., Ex. B at 2 77: 5-20
2411
Replyat 4
↓。
See， e. g., Febmary 29 , 2012 Deposition o fT imothy Sheppard (“ Feb. 29 Shepp 때
2511 Depo.") , Price Îl ecl., Ex. í at 38-47; M aÎ ch 30 Deposition òfT irÎr ôthy Sheppard, (“March 30
133:21
%
ω
2311

:=

낀

긴

갱
깅

강

02198.5185:.'4692952.5

at
at
at
at

5
4
4; March 10 Sim Depo. , Price Decl., Ex. 1 at 56:8-17
4; March 10 Sirn Depo. , Price Qecl. , Ex. 1 at 15: 1δ

、
’
Case No. ll-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’ S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO APPLE'S REPLY ISO MOTION FOR RULE 3πB) (2)
SANCTIONS

2

4

Of course , this is after Apple told the COurt that

3 11 what it wanted from Samsung required oJÙy “ pressing a few buttons. ,,25

411

Samsung has invested enorrnous resources in collect:i ng , producing , and veri며ng financial

5 11 inforrnat:i on in this case
6

7
8
9

m
n
η

”
n

1

Producing cornplex financial inforrnat:i on involves

14 11 more than ‘'pressing a few buηons，" and Samsung has directed the appropriate resources to handle
15 11 this diflìcultlask
16 11 V I.

CONTRARY TO APPLE ’ S ASSERTION , THE COURT DID NOT COMPEL

1711

SAMSUNG TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS SHOWING CONSOLIDATED

1811

PROFITS

1911

Apple contends that Samsung violated the Court's Order because the detailed fmancial

20

11 inforrnat:i on Samsung produced does not allow Apple to calculate ‘ consolidated profits" for all of

낀

””

2

Replyat 4; March 10 Sim Depo. , Price Decl., EX.l at 3 1: 23-32:21
[Se aled] Motion to Compel , Dkt. No. 613-1 at 21
Kirn Decl. at 께 3-5
인
Id. at 께 5
g
See generally Kirn Decl
g
m Id. at 께 9
March 30
g

%

”
a
μ

g
%
ω

낀
갱
02 198.5185:.'4 69295 2.5

1 11 the Samsllllg ent:it:i es - as opposed to the profits of each named Sarnsllllg defendant. 32 But the
2 11 Court did not cornpel the product:i on of docurnents showing the “ consolidated profits" of all
311 Samsung ent:it:i es. Rather, as discussed in Samsllllg's opposit:i on, the Court adopted Samsllllg's
411 offer to produce p아l!c버 ar categories of docurnents. 33 Conspicuously absent frorn these
5 11 categories is any reference to “ consolidated profits."
Apple now attempts to shoehom “ consolidated profits" into the Order by contending that

6 11

711 obtaining inforrnat:i on about the “ consolidated profits" of 어1 Samsung ent:it:i es was ‘ [o]ne ofthe
811 driving reasons behind Apple's January rnot:i on to cornpe1.,,34 Yet, Apple failed to rnent:i on
9 11 “ consolidated profits" even once in its rno t:i on to cornpel or at the hearing.35

What is rnore ,

10 11 neither in its rnot:i on to cornpel , nor in its present rno t:i on does Apple ident:i fy any request on which
11 11 it rnoved to cornpel which sought the produc t:ion of docurnents sufficient to show “ consolidated
1211 profits. ,,36

Samsung cannot be sanct:i oned f(이 not producing docurnents Apple never rnoved for

13 11 and the Court never ordered produced
In addi t:i on to being outside the scope of Apple ' s rnot:i on and the Court's Order , Samsllll양 s

1411

15 11 consolidated profits are irrelevant to 며s ac t:i on. Apple does not deny that it has sufficient
삐뼈
16에lI infoαrrnat:J.뼈 to 때 뼈빼 1t빼뼈Cαr
야 따
6 n빼
on c 어 버 뼈
따 a lcαm te
u
ùa
뼈 빼 縣 for e뼈 o ftheS ams뼈 def<때 때
d a mage s
때 양않
땅
아 뼈 없 잉 mg
un
뼈
멍
n
잉n 때
e 태 d a nts. _
띠

37 Apple is not

17

18 11 ent:i tled to , and was not granted any right to, the consolidated profits of all Samsung ent:it:i es. See
19 11 The Coryn Groμ!p， 2011 WL 862729 , at *9 (third-p아ty subsidiaries' profits irrelevant)
2011 VII.

SAMSUNG WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO PRODUCE FINANCIAL

2111

DOCUMENTS CONCERNING UNACCUSED PRODUCTS

2211

As ofthe Court's January 27, 2012 Order and the February 3rd cl닝adline ， Apple had

23 11 ident:i fied 29 Samsung products in its Patent Local Ru1 e 3-1 Infringernent Content:i ons and
24

건

Reply, S lV
DktNo. 801-3 [Se 어 ed] Opp. at 2:9-6: 15; SIl (A)
겁
Replyat 8 l8 20
26
At the hearing, Apple dernanded inforrnat:i on abαut “ Samsung's profits ," but did not
rnent:i on “ consolidated profits." Ex. 8 to 01son Dec. , Dkt. No. 759-04h at 155:5-8. In its rno t:i on
2711 to compel , Apple reque-sted “ Samsllllg's gross and operat:i ng profits ," but does not rnent:i on
“cc 뽕 olidated PI 얘ts." Dkt No. 759-2 따 22:14
28
Dkt No. 759-2
37 Mu잉ka Report, Price De c1., Ex. C at 깨 8Q..
021
98.5185:.'4692952.5
7 C a s e No. ll-cv-018μ6-LHK
SAMSUNG ’ S SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO APPLE'S REPLY ISO MOTION FOR RULE 37(B )(2)
SANCTIONS
25

~~

1

1 11 response to Interrogatory No. 5. The G aI axy S II Skyrocket, Epic 4G Touch, and Galaxy Tab
21110.14GLTEwerenotarnongthem Tothecontr아y， Apple had 1πoposed a st:ip버 at:ion whereby
311 Apple wo버 d seπe amended or supplernent어 infringernent content:i ons to “ add [the Epic 4G
411 Touch and Skyrocket] as Accused Ins1rurnentali t:i es in 며 s ac t:i on." In light of Apple's proposed
5 11 stip버 at:ion， Apple's clairn that its infringernent content:i ons already encornpassed these products is
611 sirnply not credible. 38 Furtherrnore , Apple rnakes no aηernpt to just:i fy wait:i ng unt:il justfour days
711 before the

c/ ose

01 discovery•-rn ore than five rnonths after the release ofthe Epic 4G Touc h, and

8 11 nearly four rnonths after the release ofthe Skyrocket-to ident:i fy these products in its re야 :::mse to
9 11 InterrogatαyNo.5

ζf Carl Zeiss Vision Int ’'1 GmbH v. SignetArmorlite , Inc. , 2010 WL 743792

10 11 (S.D.Cal. 2010) (barring the plaintiff from introducing evidence of products identified for the first
11 11 time at the close offact discovery)
12 11

Apple does not dispute that these products are sold llllder different names and rnooel

1311 nurnbers. 39 But the differences between these prooucts nm deeper than rnere labels. For
1411 exarnple , the Skyrocket and Epic 4G Touch differ from the G어 axy S 11 in terrns of Android
15 11 operating systern versions , dirnensions , display screen size , processor speeds , 4G teclmologies ,
1611 and battery power. 40 The products had different launch dates , are subject to dis t:i nct branding
1711 efforts, and are sold at significant1 y different prices-$99 .99 f，이 the Galaxy S II (AT &T e이tion) ，
1811 compared to $199.99 for the Skyrocket and Epic 4G Touch 41 Ap미e had at1잃st construct:J. ve
1911 not:i ce ofthese prooucts as early as August 2011 ,42 yet Apple chose to ornit thern frorn its
20 11 Infringernent Content:i ons , and wait rnonths before finally ident:i fying these prooucts for the first
21 11 t:i rne in its response to Interrogatory No. 5. The Court should r엔 ect Apple's atternpt to irnpose
22 11 sanct:i ons on Sarnsung by retroac t:i vely expan이ng the scope of the Court' s Order
23

38
Nothing in the PI때osed st:i pulat:i on indicates that it was intended to “ clarify the inclusion
2411 of' models aIreãdy in tlÎe casζ asA매le now clairns. (See Re미y atll , n.6.) T뼈t1때guage does
not ~ppear anywhere in the st:i pulat:i on
2511
"~In its January 27 Ordêr, the Court used e)φlicit terrns in the oJÙy instance where it
cornpelled Samsung to proouce docurnents relat:iI땅 to variants of accuβed products α prooucts
26 11 wi t1:lln the sarne “ family" as an accused product. (See Dkt. No. 673 at 14.) The Court used no
suc4Janguage in cornpelling proouc t:i on of fin때cial data
2711
<C
Pric-e DecL Êxs. D--~ G
41
Id- Ex H
2811
42
See Reply Declarat:i on ofGrant Ki rn , Exs. 8 , 11 (showing :r:πoouct reviews ofthe Galaxy
02없페;:"4692 영 "IITab 10.1 4G LTE and Epic 4G Touch dated Al뿔?t l5, 2Oll andAugust3%&랩， fFAF;S잃짧&

SAMSUNG ’ S SUPPL마RIALRESPONSE TO APPLES REPLYISOM〔 TIONFORRgk53%없

1 11 VIII. THE SANCTIONS DEMANDED BY APPLE ARE INAPPROPRIATE OR MOOT
2 11

For the reasons discussed here and in its opposit:i on, Samsung has not violated the Court' s

311 January 27 Order. Apple has also not suffered any PI 런U이 ce. Since App,le filed its rnoti 이L
411 Sarnsung produced on March 21.20
Samsung has also rnade available

5

agωn

for deposi t:i on its two Rule

61130 (b)(6) witnesses on lìnancial topics. 43 Apple deposed Timothy Sheppard, STA's Vice
711 President ofFinance and Operat:i ons on March 30 , 2012니 and SEC's Vice President Jaehwang Sirn
811 on March 31 , 2012.

44

Mr. Sheppard has been deposed in this ac 1i on three times , and betwe잉1

9 11 action and the concurrent ITC invest:igat:i oI1S, Apple has deposed Mr. Sheppardfive times. Apple
10llhashadm버따 ,le

opportunit:ies to ques t:i on Samsung's witnesses about

11 11 뻐::l docurnents produced since February 3, 2012
η

”
n
””

”
16 11 Apple has suffered no prejudice , even if Samsllllg failed to timely produce all responsive
1711 docurnents , no sanct:i ons are just:i fied. See Henry v. Gill Indus. , Inc. , 983 F.2d 943 , 948 (9th Cir
18111993) (holdingthatthe “'k ey factors are PI텅udice and the availability oflesser sanct:i ons") 이
19 11

Apple has also failed to demonsσate the k:i nd of “ exσerne circurnstances" necessary to

20 11 irnpose preclusive sanct:i ons. In an aηernpt to lower its burden, Apple rnisconstrues the holding
21 11 Fair Housing afMarin v. Cambs , 285 F.3d 899 , 905 (9th Cir. 2002). The Ninth Circuitin Cambs
2211 이d not hold that the standard it irnposed was lirnited to preclusive sanct:i ons. Id. To the
23 11 contrary, the Ninth Circuit chose broad language , holding that “ sanc 1i ons are appropriate oJÙy in
2411 ‘ exσerne circurnstances' and where the violat:i on is due to will fi.ù ness , bad fai th, or fa버t ofthe

“

2511 p아ty. '" Id. Further, the court in 1η re Heritage Bond Litig tion - ignored by Apple
%
43
March 31 Sirn Depo. , Price Decl. , Ex. B; March 30 Sheppard Depo. , Price Decl. , Ex. A
ω
44
Id.
낀
45
Expert Report ofTerry Musika, Price Decl. , Ex. C
46
T'
Id. at ~ 93
갱
47
Even Äpple , in its Corrected Reply, adrnitted that a ‘ 'harnùess" discovery infract:i on
precludes even light sanct:i ons. Re미yatl4:1
02198.5185:.'4692952. 5

1 IIllllderstood the Ninth Circuit' s holding in Combs as applying to pre c1usive sanct:i ons. 223 F.R. D
211527 , 530 (C .D. Cal. 2004) (“ Under 1액섭1üili양 subsections (A) through (C) , sanctions are
3 11 ‘ appropriate oJÙy in exσerne circurnstances and where the violat:i on is due to willfiùness , bad fai th,
411 0r fa버t ofthe p아ty. "’)

There is no just:i ficat:i on for irnposing the draconian sanct:i ons dernanded by Apple

5 11

611 Regarding sanct:i on requests nos. 1, 2 , and 3, the Court did not cornpel , and therefore shou1 d not
711 now cornpel , the produc t:i on of all ofthe financial docurnents id닝 nt:ified in Apple's pr얘osed order
811 These “ sanc t:i ons" requests are nothing rnore than an atternpt by Apple to rnake an end nm arolllld
9 11 the Court' s prior Order.

Regarding sanct:i on request no. 4-1πeduding Samsllllg frorn referring to
the sanct:i on does nothing to rernedy the purported violat:i on

10llthe

11 11 Moreover , it wou1 d oJÙy create confusion for the Court and the jury because it wou1 d allow Apple
12 11 to present inforrnat:i on about later produced fin뻐cial inforrnat:i on, while requiring that Samsllllg
13 11 oJÙy present inforrnat:i on produced earlier. Thus , it is a direct conσavent:ion ofthe ‘φublic policy
1411 favoring disposi t:i on of cases on their rnerits." I d. 48 None ofthe sanct:i ons Apple seeks redresses
15 11 뻐y hann , rernedies any 、vrong， or prornotes the interests ofjust:i ce
1611
1711
m
ω

”

m

m
낀

CONCLUSION
For the reasons state d, Apple ' s Mo t:i on for Sanct:i ons shou1 d be denied
DATED: April 7 , 2012

Respectfiùly subrnitted,
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN , LLP
By~

2

”
a

/s/ Vicotria F. Maroulis
Charles K. Verhoeven
Kevin P. B. Johnson
Victoria F. Marou1is
Michael T. Zeller

”
a
g
%
ω

Attomeys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. , LT D.,
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, IN C. and
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA
LLC

낀
%

48 Regarding No. 5, Samsllllg does not intend to seek to cont:i nue the trial based α1 any
ω
nùing regarding this rnot:i on
021
98.5185:.'4692952.5
-10Case No. ll-cv-018μ6-LH1ζ
SAMSUNG ’ S SUPPL마RIALRESPONSE IOAPPLES REPLYISOM〔 TIONFORRgk53%없