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

Filing 863

ORDER by Judge Paul S. Grewal denying #856 Motion for Leave to File (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11

SAN JOSE DIVISION

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

APPLE INC.,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD, a
)
Korean corporation; SAMSUNG
)
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York )
corporation; and SAMSUNG
)
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, )
a Delaware limited liability company,
)
)
)
Defendants.

Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER DENYING SAMSUNG’S
ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR
LEAVE TO FILE SUR-REPLY
(Re: Docket No. 856)

Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-3(d) and 7-11, Defendants and counter-claimants Samsung
Electronics Co., LTD., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications

21
America, LLC (collectively “Samsung”) have submitted an administrative request for leave to file
22
23

a sur-reply to Plaintiff Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) reply in support of its Rule 37(b)(2) motion

24

regarding Samsung’s alleged violation of the court’s January 27, 2012 order respecting damages

25

discovery.

26
27

Apple filed its Rule 37(b)(2) motion on February 28, 2012. Samsung filed its opposition
brief on March 13, 2012, and Apple filed its reply brief on March 20, 2012. Samsung filed this

28
1

Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER

1

administrative request on Saturday, April 7, 2012, less than two days before the Monday morning

2

hearing set for the underlying motion and on a weekend when many of the Jewish and Christian

3

faiths celebrate the Passover and Easter holidays. Samsung filed its request without explanation for

4

its delay, citing only Apple’s “mischaracterizations and distortions” of certain Samsung witness

5

deposition testimony and Apple’s unfounded accusations against Samsung, made in its reply brief.

6

Samsung’s request comes too late. Civ. L.R. 7-3(d) authorizes the filing of supplemental

7
8
9

material “within 7 days after the reply is filed,” in the form of an objection to new evidence that
has been submitted in the reply. Civ. L.R. 7-11 requires a party to submit, together with the request

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

for administrative relief, a stipulation or declaration explaining why a stipulation could not be

11

obtained. Samsung has done neither. Moreover, in light of the long lead time that Samsung had to

12

review Apple’s reply brief and object to the evidence submitted therein, or to seek a stipulation

13

from Apple to file a sur-reply, the court finds Samsung’s delay to be unjustified. The court

14
accordingly DENIES Samsung’s request for leave to file a supplemental response.
15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 4/10/2012

18

_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2

Case No.: C 11-1846 LHK (PSG)
ORDER