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

Filing 968

MOTION for Sanctions filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC(a Delaware limited liability company). Motion Hearing set for 6/26/2012 10:00 AM in Courtroom 5, 4th Floor, San Jose before Magistrate Judge Paul Singh Grewal. Responses due by 6/5/2012. Replies due by 6/12/2012. (Attachments: #1 Declaration of Diane C. Hutnyan in Support of Motion for Rule 37 Sanctions, #2 Proposed Order Granting Samsung's Motion for Rule 37 Sanctions)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 5/22/2012)

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
DECLARATION OF DIANE C.
HUTNYAN IN SUPPORT OF
SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RULE 37
SANCTIONS FOR APPLE’S VIOLATION
OF DECEMBER 22, 2011 COURT ORDER
Date: June 26, 2012
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Place: Courtroom 5, 4th Floor
Judge: Hon. Paul S. Grewal

26
27
28
Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
DECLARATION OF DIANE C. HUTNYAN ISO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RULE 37 SANCTIONS FOR
APPLE’S VIOLATION OF DECEMBER 22, 2011 COURT ORDER

1

I, Diane C. Hutnyan, declare:

2

1.

I am a partner with the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP,

3 counsel for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung
4
5

Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively, “Samsung”).
the State of California.

I am licensed to practice law in

I submit this declaration in support of Samsung’s Motion for Rule 37

6
7
8

Sanctions for Apple’s Violation of the Court’s December 22, 2011 Order.

I have personal

knowledge of the facts set forth in this declaration and, if called upon as a witness, I could and

9 would testify to the following facts.
10
2.

Among the deposition transcripts that had, until this Court’s April 12 enforcement

11
12

order, been improperly withheld in violation of the Court’s December 22 Order were those of the

13 following inventors:

Bas Ording, named inventor on the ‘381, ‘891, and ‘163 patents (3

14 transcripts); Joshua Strickon, named inventor on the ‘607 patent; Wayne Westerman, named
15 inventor on the ‘828 patent; John Elias, named inventor on the ‘828 patent; Andrew Platzer,
16
17

named inventor on the ‘915 patent; Scott Herz, named inventor on the ‘915 patent; Imran
Chaudhri, named inventor on the ‘891, ‘163, D’305, D’334, and D’790 patents; Stephen Lemay,

18
19
20

named inventor on the ‘163 patent; Richard Williamson, named inventor on the ‘163 patent; Chris
Blumenberg, named inventor on the ‘163 patent, and Brian Land, named inventor on the ‘129

21 patent.

In addition, Apple withheld 25 utility and design inventor transcripts from the 796

22 Investigation:

Boule (2 transcripts), Westerman, Herz, Anzures, Williamson, Christie,

23 Blumenberg, LeMay, Coster, Ive, Platzer, Chaudhri, Howarth, Forstall (2 transcripts),
24

Zorkendorfer, Stringer, Whang, De Iuliis (2 transcripts), Kerr, Rohrbach, Andre and Hotelling.

25
26

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is

27 true and correct.
28

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-2DECLARATION OF DIANE C. HUTNYAN ISO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RULE 37 SANCTIONS FOR
APPLE’S VIOLATION OF DECEMBER 22, 2011 COURT ORDER

1

Executed in Los Angeles, California on May 22, 2012.

2
3
4

/s/ Diane C. Hutnyan
Diane C. Hutnyan

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-3DECLARATION OF DIANE C. HUTNYAN ISO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RULE 37 SANCTIONS FOR
APPLE’S VIOLATION OF DECEMBER 22, 2011 COURT ORDER

1
2
3
4

GENERAL ORDER ATTESTATION
I, Victoria Maroulis, am the ECF user whose ID and password are being used to file the
foregoing document. I hereby attest pursuant to General Order 45.X.B. that concurrence in the
electronic filing of this document has been obtained from Diane Hutnyan.

5
6
7

/s/ Victoria Maroulis

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No. 11-cv-01846-LHK
-4DECLARATION OF DIANE C. HUTNYAN ISO SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR RULE 37 SANCTIONS FOR
APPLE’S VIOLATION OF DECEMBER 22, 2011 COURT ORDER