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)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
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
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?