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

Filing 967

NOTICE OF MOTION for Clarification of April 12 Order by Apple Inc. re #888 Proposed Order, #887 Declaration in Support,, #894 Reply to Opposition/Response, #903 Status Report, #904 Exhibits, #885 MOTION Administrative Relief . Motion hearing set for 6/26/2012 at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal (Tucher, Alison) (Filed on 5/22/2012) Modified on 6/6/2012 counsel incorrected posted document as a notice (dhm, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

HAROLD J. MCELHINNY (CA SBN 66781)
[e-mail]
MICHAEL A. JACOBS (CA SBN 111664)
[e-mail]
JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368)
[e-mail]
ALISON M. TUCHER (CA SBN 171363)
[e-mail]
RICHARD S.J. HUNG (CA SBN 197425)
[e-mail]
JASON R. BARTLETT (CA SBN 214530)
[e-mail]
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

WILLIAM F. LEE
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
60 State Street
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
MARK D. SELWYN (SBN 244180)
[e-mail]
WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
HALE AND DORR LLP
950 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, California 94304
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

10
11

Attorneys for Plaintiff and
Counterclaim-Defendant APPLE INC.

12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

SAN JOSE DIVISION

17

APPLE INC., a California corporation,

18
19
20
21
22

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
APPLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION OF APRIL 12
ORDER
Date:
Time:
Place:
Judge:

23
Defendants.
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF APRIL 12 ORDER
CASE NO. 11-CV01846-LHK
sf-3149463

June 26, 2012
10:00 a.m.
Courtroom 5, 4th Floor
Hon. Paul S. Grewal

1
2
3

NOTICE OF MOTION
TO:

ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 26, 2012, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the

4

matter may be heard by the Honorable Paul S. Grewal in Courtroom 5, United States District

5

Court for the Northern District of California, Robert F. Peckham Federal Building, 280 South 1st

6

Street, San Jose, CA 95113, Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) shall move the Court for an Order, originally

7

requested in Apple’s Administrative Motion for Clarification of April 12 Order filed and served

8

by Apple on April 26, 2012 (Dkt. No. 885), that clarifies its Order of April 12, 2012

9

(Dkt. No. 867). The Motion for Clarification is based on this Notice of Motion; Apple’s

10

Administrative Motion for Clarification of April 12 Order, filed and served on April 26, 2012

11

(Dkt. No. 885); the supporting Declaration of Mia Mazza and exhibits thereto, filed and served by

12

Apple on April 26, 2012 (Dkt. Nos. 887 through 887-24); the Proposed Order Granting Apple’s

13

Motion for Clarification of April 12 Order, filed and served by Apple on April 26, 2012 (Dkt. No.

14

888); Apple’s Reply in Support of Motion for Clarification of April 12 Order, filed and served by

15

Apple on May 1, 2012 (Dkt. No. 894); Apple’s Status Update Regarding Compliance with April

16

12 Order and exhibits thereto, filed and served by Apple on May 7, 2012 (Dkt. Nos. 903 and

17

904); Apple’s Supplemental Statement of Additional Facts in Support of Motion for Clarification

18

of April 12 Order and exhibits thereto, filed and served on May 9, 2012 (Dkt. Nos. 911 through

19

911-4); and such other written or oral argument as may be presented at or before the time this

20

Motion for Clarification is taken under submission by the Court.

21

RELIEF REQUESTED

22

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, Apple requests that the Court clarify that:

23

1. Part B.2 of the April 12, 2012 Order, compelling production of “unredacted court

24

documents,” does not require Apple to produce documents in violation of ITC protective orders

25

or Local Rules. To the extent ITC protective orders or Local Rules do not have an exception that

26

allows for production pursuant to a court order, Apple is relieved of any requirement to produce

27

confidential documents from court files in the applicable cases.

28
APPLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF APRIL 12 ORDER
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3149463

2

1

2. Part B.1 of the Order, compelling additional depositions, permitted Samsung to take

2

only those depositions that were reasonably necessary to mitigate prejudice caused by Apple’s

3

late production of transcripts pursuant to the Order, and that were timely noticed.

4
5

Dated: May 22, 2012

MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

6
7
8
9

By:

/s/ Alison M. Tucher
Alison M. Tucher
Attorneys for Plaintiff
APPLE INC.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
APPLE’S NOTICE OF MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF APRIL 12 ORDER
CASE NO. 11-CV-01846-LHK
sf-3149463

3