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

Filing 895

Administrative Motion to File Under Seal filed by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Apple Inc.s Motion For Adverse Inference Jury Instructions Due To Samsungs Spoliation Of Evidence, #2 Declaration of Esther Kim ISO Apple Inc.s Motion For Adverse Inference Jury Instructions Due To Samsungs Spoliation Of Evidence, #3 Exhibit 1, #4 Exhibit 32, #5 Exhibit 33, #6 Proposed Order Granting Apple Inc.s Motion For Adverse Inference Jury Instructions Due To Samsungs Spoliation Of Evidence, #7 Proposed Order Granting Apple's Administrative Motion to Seal Documents)(McElhinny, Harold) (Filed on 5/1/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

11
12

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19

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,

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK (PSG)
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
APPLE INC.’S MOTION FOR
ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY
INSTRUCTIONS DUE TO
SAMSUNG’S SPOLIATION OF
EVIDENCE

Defendants.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3139813

1

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37 and Local Rule 37-4, Apple Inc. (“Apple”)

2

seeks certain remedies based on Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.’s, Samsung Electronics

3

America, Inc.’s, and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC’s (collectively, “Samsung”)

4

spoliation of evidence.

5

Having considered the arguments of the parties and the papers submitted, and GOOD

6

CAUSE HAVING BEEN SHOWN, IT IS ORDERED that Apple’s Motion for Adverse Inference

7

Jury Instructions Due to Samsung’s Spoliation of Evidence is GRANTED.

8

The Court issues the following findings and orders:

9

1.

The Court finds that Samsung spoliated evidence.

10

2.

The Court will instruct the jury that:

11

(a) Samsung had a duty to preserve relevant evidence, including emails;

12

Samsung failed to preserve large volumes of relevant emails and other

13

documents; Samsung acted in bad faith in failing to preserve the relevant

14

documents; and the jury may presume that the documents that Samsung failed

15

to preserve would have been favorable to Apple’s case and unfavorable to

16

Samsung; and

17

(b) if the jury finds infringement of any Apple patent, trademark, or trade

18

dress, the jury may infer that the infringement was intentional, willful, and

19

without regard to Apple’s rights.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23
24

Dated: May ____, 2012
HONORABLE LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

25
26
27
28
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING APPLE’S MOTION FOR ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK (PSG)
sf-3139813