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

Filing 877

ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST For Leave To File Supplemental Declaration Of Erik J. Olson In Support Of Apples Rule 37(B)(2) Motion Re Samsungs Violation Of January 27, 2012 Damages Discovery Order filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Erik J. Olson ISO Rule 37(b)(2) re Damages, #2 Exhibit A, #3 Exhibit B, #4 Exhibit C, #5 Proposed Order)(Tucher, Alison) (Filed on 4/20/2012) Modified text on 4/23/2012 (dhm, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 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 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SAN JOSE DIVISION 15 16 APPLE INC., a California corporation, 17 18 19 20 21 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, 22 Defendants. Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL 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 9, 2012 10:00 a.m. Courtroom 5, 4th Floor Hon. Paul S. Grewal 23 24 25 26 27 28 Administrative Request for Leave to File the Supplemental Mazza Declaration Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK 1 Pursuant to Civil Local Rules 7-3(d) and 7-11, Apple Inc. (“Apple”) hereby requests leave 2 of Court to file the Supplemental Declaration of Erik Olson (“Supplemental Olson Declaration”) 3 in support of Apple’s Rule 37(b)(2) Motion Re Samsung’s Violation of the Court’s January 27, 4 2012 Damages Discovery Order (the “Motion”). A copy of the Supplemental Olson Declaration 5 that Apple seeks to file, and Exhibits A-C thereto, are appended to this Administrative Request. 6 On April 9, 2012, Apple’s 37(b)(2) Motion was argued and submitted to the Court. After 7 the hearing three developments occurred that may aid the Court’s consideration of the issues 8 involved in Apple’s Motion. All three issues are outlined in the Olson Declaration. One is time- 9 sensitive. In accordance with the Court’s suggestion during oral argument on the motion, Apple 10 has attempted to get Samsung to agree to postpone the deposition of Apple’s damages expert until 11 the Court has had a chance to rule on the pending motion. The deposition is scheduled to occur 12 on April 26th, and Samsung has refused. (Olson Decl. ¶¶ 3-5.) 13 Apple sent a copy of the Supplemental Olson Declaration to counsel for Samsung and 14 requested that Samsung advise whether or not it opposes this Administrative Request. Samsung 15 responded that it does so oppose. 16 17 Accordingly, Apple respectfully requests permission to file the accompanying Supplemental Olson Declaration. 18 19 Dated: April 20, 2012 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 20 21 22 23 By: /s/ Alison M. Tucher ALISON M. TUCHER Attorneys for Plaintiff APPLE INC. 24 25 26 27 28 ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL OLSON DECLARATION CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG) sf-3135744 1

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?