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

Filing 899

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #895 Administrative Motion to File Under Seal 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 Proposed Order Granting Motion to Extend Time, #2 Declaration of Sara Jenkins in Support of Motion to Extend Time, #3 Exhibit 1 to the Declaration of Sara Jenkins)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 5/7/2012)

1 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven (Cal. Bar No. 170151)
2 [e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
3 San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: [phone]
4 Facsimile: [phone]
5 Kevin P.B. Johnson (Cal. Bar No. 177129)
[e-mail]
6 Victoria F. Maroulis (Cal. Bar No. 202603)
[e-mail]
7 555 Twin Dolphin Drive 5th Floor
Redwood Shores, California 94065
8 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
9
Michael T. Zeller (Cal. Bar No. 196417)
10 [e-mail]
865 S. Figueroa St., 10th Floor
11 Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
12 Facsimile: [phone]
13 Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
14 AMERICA, INC. and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SAN JOSE DIVISION

18 APPLE INC., a California corporation,
Plaintiff,

19
20

vs.

21 SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., a
Korean business entity; SAMSUNG
22 ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New
York corporation; SAMSUNG
23 TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
24
Defendants.
25

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO ENLARGE
TIME FOR BRIEFING AND HEARING
ON APPLE’S MOTION FOR ADVERSE
INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTIONS
Date:
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Place: Courtroom 5, 4th Floor
Judge: Hon. Paul S. Grewal

26
27
28
02198.51887/4739095.1

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME

1

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION

2

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

3

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that pursuant to Civil Local Rules 6-1(b) and 6-3, Samsung

4 Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications
5 America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”) hereby move the Court for an order enlarging the time
6 for briefing and hearing on Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) Motion for Adverse Inference Jury Instructions
7 based on Samsung’s alleged spoliation of evidence.
8

(Dkt. 895.)

This motion is based on this Notice of Motion, supporting memorandum of points and

9 authorities, and the Declaration of Sara Jenkins in Support of Samsung’s Motion to Enlarge Time.
10
11
12

RELIEF REQUESTED
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 6-3, Samsung requests that the Court issue an order setting

13 the following briefing and hearing schedule:
14

1. Samsung’s Opposition will be due on May 29, 2012;

15

2. Apple’s Reply will be due on June 5, 2012; and

16

3. the hearing will be held on July 10, 2012.

17
18
19

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
On May 1, 2012, Apple filed its Motion for Adverse Inference Jury Instructions based on

20 Samsung’s alleged spoliation of evidence.
21
22

Apple’s allegations are baseless and Samsung will

vigorously defend its document retention policies.

However, given the severity of the relief

sought by Apple, and the number of Samsung custodians it claims destroyed relevant evidence,

23
24
25

this task will be painstaking and time-consuming.

Because any such adverse inference jury

instruction would not be given until the end of trial, Apple will suffer no prejudice if time is

26 enlarged as requested herein. By contrast, Samsung could suffer substantial prejudice if it has
27 insufficient time to fully address Apple’s unsubstantiated allegations.
28
02198.51887/4739095.1

-1-

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME

1

Apple waited nearly two months after the close of fact discovery to request sanctions.

2 Apple bases its demand for sanctions on speculation regarding the existence of unidentified
3
4

emails, and conclusorily asserts that such emails were not produced.

(Dkt. 895 at 4-6.)

In

support, Apple cites to testimony of a handful of custodians which it presents out-of-context.

5
6
7

(Id.) Yet, almost all of those depositions occurred months ago and Apple certainly has had
knowledge about the number of e-mails and other documents Samsung has produced in this case

8 for a significant amount of time.

Moreover, the unrelated and inapplicable Korean Fair Trade

9 Commission (“KFTC”) investigation Apple cites took place in March, 2011 – fourteen months
10 ago – and the final KFTC press release was issued nearly two months ago.
11

(Id. at 6-7.)

Yet,

Apple waited until 5 p.m. on May 1, 2012 to file this Motion and now opposes any extension of

12
time to respond to these serious allegations.

(See Declaration of Sara Jenkins in Support of

13
14
15

Samsung’s Motion to Enlarge Time (“Jenkins Decl.”) ¶¶ 7-11, Ex. 1.)
Apple’s rationale for opposing an extension is without merit.

Despite waiting nearly

16 two months after the close of fact discovery to file its Motion, Apple now claims that the
17 extension Samsung seeks will “jam[] up Judge Grewal in July and result[] in a ruling that (at best)
18 comes on the eve of trial.” (Jenkins Decl. Ex. 1.) Yet, the remedy Apple seeks will not be
19

applicable until the very end of trial.

Specifically, Apple requests adverse inference jury

20
instructions based on Samsung’s alleged spoliation of evidence.

(Dkt. 895 at iv, 15.) Apple

21
22

also claims that Samsung does not need additional time to respond since Samsung filed its

23 Opposition to Apple’s Motion for Spoliation Sanctions in a related action before the International
24 Trade Commission (“ITC”) last week.

(Jenkins Decl. ¶ 10, Ex. 1.) However, this Opposition is

25 by no means a mirror of the just- filed Opposition.
26
27

The patents at issue are different, the ITC

Motion involved different custodians, and Samsung’s obligation to preserve evidence arose at
different times.

(Jenkins Decl. ¶ 12.)

28
02198.51887/4739095.1

-2-

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME

1

Samsung has worked diligently to respond to Apple’s allegations.

Upon receipt of the

2 Motion, after business hours on May 1, 2012, Samsung immediately assigned all available
3
4

resources to the task of preparing the Opposition.

(Jenkins Decl. ¶ 13.)

On its face, responding

to Apple’s Motion requires the review of thousands of pages of documents, and of voluminous

5
6
7

deposition testimony relating to not only each of the custodians at issue, but also Samsung’s
practices as it relates to the preservation of information concerning a range of issues raised in the

8 Motion.

(Id. ¶ 6.) Obtaining declarations and factual background from a number of custodians

9 in Korea obviously requires very significant efforts.

The potential use of expert testimony, and

10 the application of the standards applicable to preservation of documents pursuant to Korean law,
11

must also be addressed.

(Id.) Although some of these issues have been foreshadowed in the

12
ITC proceeding, as explained above, given the different claims and timeframes for preservation
13
14

involved in the instant Motion, Samsung must address those issues anew.

(Id. ¶¶ 6, 12.)

In

15 light of the complexity and volume of Apple’s Motion, Samsung will be prejudiced if it is forced
16 to respond to Apple’s Motion by May 15, 2012, despite its best efforts.
17

Complicating Samsung’s effort to respond to Apple’s Motion is the fact that Samsung’s

18 counsel has to prepare and file pre-trial motions both in this case as well as the ITC action,
19

participate in a court-ordered mediation session with Apple, and prepare for a hearing in the ITC

20
action set to begin at the end of May.

(Jenkins Decl. ¶ 5.) Samsung’s counsel will be in hearing

21
22

for the ITC action between May 30 and June 16 in Washington, DC.

(Id.) Accordingly, it will

23 be difficult for Samsung to participate in a hearing before the first week of July.
24

The requested enlargement of time will not affect the schedule for this case.

As

25 discussed supra, the remedies Apple seeks will not be applicable until District Judge Koh gives
26
27

jury instructions at the end of trial.
effect on the trial date.

Enlarging the time for briefing and hearing will have no

(Jenkins Decl. ¶ 16.)

28
02198.51887/4739095.1

-3-

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME

CONCLUSION

1
2
3
4

For the foregoing reasons, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court grant Samsung’s
Motion to Enlarge Time for Briefing and Hearing on Apple’s Motion for Adverse Inference Jury
Instructions.

5
6
7

DATED: May 7, 2012

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

By /s/ Victoria Maroulis
Charles K. Verhoeven
Kevin P.B. Johnson
Victoria F. Maroulis
Michael T. Zeller
Attorneys for SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC., and SAMSUNG
TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
02198.51887/4739095.1

-4-

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
SAMSUNG’S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME