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

Filing 911

Statement re #885 MOTION Administrative Relief Apples Administrative Motion For Clarification Of April 12 Order Apples Supplemental Statement Of Additional Facts Regarding Motion For Clarification by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D)(Bartlett, Jason) (Filed on 5/9/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781) MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664) JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368) ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363) RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425) JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530) MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street San Francisco, California 94105-2482 Telephone: (415) 268-7000 Facsimile: (415) 268-7522 WILLIAM F. LEE 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) WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP 950 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, California 94304 Telephone: (650) 858-6000 Facsimile: (650) 858-6100 10 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC. 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 SAN JOSE DIVISION 16 17 APPLE INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, 18 19 20 21 22 v. Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK APPLE’S SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACTS REGARDING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION 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, 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 APPLE’S SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MOT. FOR CLARIFICATION CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3144057 1 Apple writes to apprise the Court of additional facts relating to its motion for clarification. 2 In its April 12, 2012 Order (Dkt. No. 867), the Court ordered Apple to produce certain 3 transcripts by April 27, 2012. The Court also allowed Samsung to identify and depose five 4 individuals for up to ten hours, in aggregate, based on that transcript production and set the 5 deadline for these depositions as May 10, 2012. Apple produced all of the deposition transcripts 6 required by the Court's order by April 21, 2012. This was a full six days before the Court's 7 deadline. Three times, on April 24, 2012, April 30, 2012, and May 4, 2012, Apple wrote 8 Samsung to ask when it would be identifying its deponents. (See Exhibits A, B, & C (April 24, 9 2012, April 30, 2012, and May 4, 2012 correspondence from Mia Mazza to Diane Hutnyan).) 10 Despite its possession of these transcripts for eighteen days, and despite Apple's three 11 reminders, Samsung waited until May 9th to identify its five deponents for the first time. This is 12 just one day before the Court's deadline. (See Exhibit D (May 9, 2012 e-mails from Diane 13 Hutnyan to Jason Bartlett).) 14 Samsung's identification of these witnesses is simply perplexing. These depositions 15 cannot be reasonably occasioned by the Court's order. The names of two of these employees, 16 Emilie Kim and Saku Hieta, appear nowhere in the transcripts. Samsung also previously declined 17 to depose Mr. Hieta, and it terminated Ms. Kim's prior deposition after two hours. The deposition 18 references to Richard Howarth and Priya Balasubramaniam are limited, to say the least. Mr. 19 Howarth has already been deposed for more than 13 hours in this case and the co-pending ITC 20 investigation (337-TC-796). Finally, as for Andrew Bright, it is difficult to understand how his 21 work on the acoustics of the iPhone 4 (which was the subject of his produced transcript) bears any 22 relevance to the issues in this case. 23 In response to Apple's inquiries, Samsung has refused to explain why these depositions 24 were occasioned by the production of Apple's transcripts. Samsung also confirmed its position 25 that the Court's April 12, 2012 order allows Samsung to take the depositions of anyone. Finally, 26 despite waiting eighteen days to identify its deponents, Samsung demanded that all five 27 individuals appear for deposition on one day's notice or that Apple stipulate to extend the 28 deadline. (See Exhibit D (May 9, 2012 e-mails from Diane Hutnyan to Jason Bartlett).) APPLE’S SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MOT. FOR CLARIFICATION CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3144057 1 1 Samsung's conduct in identifying these deponents one day before the Court's deadline— 2 and its position that it can take or re-open any deposition regardless of whether it is reasonably 3 occasioned by Apple's transcript production—underscores the need for this Court's clarification 4 of its April 12, 2012 Order. 5 As a result of Samsung's extremely belated identification of these witnesses, Apple 6 believes that Samsung has waived its right to depose or re-depose these witnesses under the 7 Court's order. But if Apple is required to put these individuals up for deposition after the 8 deadline, Samsung should be required to explain why Apple's production of transcripts 9 reasonably justifies these depositions, as Apple has requested in its clarification motion. Apple 10 also requests reasonable time to produce these witnesses for deposition, in light of Samsung's 11 very late identification. 12 13 14 Dated: May 9, 2012 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 15 16 17 18 By: /s/ Jason R. Bartlett JASON R. BARTLETT Attorneys for Plaintiff APPLE INC. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPLE’S SUPPLEMENTAL STATEMENT OF ADDITIONAL FACTS RE MOT. FOR CLARIFICATION CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK sf-3144057 2

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?