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

Filing 1656

ORDER RE SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE'S DISCLOSURES RE 1639-3. Signed by Judge Lucy Koh on 4/10/14. (lhklc5S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/10/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

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

APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

)
)
Plaintiff and Counterdefendant,
)
)
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,
)
)
Defendants and Counterclaimants. )
)

Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER ON SAMSUNG’S
OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S
DISCLOSURES

On April 9, 2014, Samsung filed objections to Apple’s disclosures. ECF Nos. 1639-3,
1647. On April 9, 2014, Apple filed a response. ECF No. 1637-3. After reviewing the parties’
briefing, considering the record in the case, and balancing the considerations set forth in Federal
Rule of Evidence 403, the Court rules on Samsung’s objections as follows:
SAMSUNG OBJECTION
A. Thomas Bonura
12/11/12 Dep. Tr. at 26:810 & 26:13-27:1
12/11/12 Dep. Tr. at
156:15-20, 156:23-158:3,

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION
Overruled.
Overruled.
1

Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER ON SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S DISCLOSURES

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

158:6-160:12
B. Cary Clark
Ex. 5 to June 25, 2013 Dep.
of Cary Clark
C. Dianne Hackborn
Ex. 4 to June 18, 2013 Dep.
of Dianne Hackborn
Ex. 5 to June 25, 2013 Dep.
of Cary Clark
D. Hiroshi Lockheimer
PX212
PX221
ECF No. 221
E. Dale Sohn
PX147
PX227
ECF No. 221

Overruled; the document may be used solely for refreshing
recollection if necessary, but will not be admitted as an exhibit.
Overruled; the document may be used solely for refreshing
recollection if necessary, but will not be admitted as an exhibit.
Overruled; the document may be used solely for refreshing
recollection if necessary, but will not be admitted as an exhibit.
Overruled.
Overruled.
Sustained.
Overruled.
Overruled.
Sustained.

Samsung also requests to seal various documents. ECF Nos. 1639-3, 1639-9, 1651.

12

Having considered Samsung’s requests, and compelling reasons having been shown, the Court

13

seals the following documents as follows:

14
15
16

Exhibit and pages
requested to be sealed
PX202: page 11
PX229 in its entirety

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

PX242 in its entirety
PDX88: Slides .18A, .19A,
.20, .22-.24, .26-.33, .35
PX164: pages 3-7, 18, 2024, if not used during a
witness examination
PX165: pages 3-7, 17, 1922, if not used during a
witness examination
PX200: pages 71-81, if not
used during a witness
examination
PX203: pages 3 & 7, if not
used during a witness
examination
PX212 in its entirety
PX221 in its entirety

COURT’S RULING ON SEALING REQUEST
GRANTED.
DENIED without prejudice. By 7:30 A.M., April 11, 2014,
Samsung must identify specific portions that warrant sealing,
such as “pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum
payment terms.” In re Elec. Arts, 298 Fed. App’x 568, 569-70
(9th Cir. 2008).
GRANTED as to pages 5-32.
GRANTED.
GRANTED.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.

GRANTED.
GRANTED.
GRANTED.
2

Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER ON SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S DISCLOSURES

1
2

PX227 in its entirety
PX336 in its entirety

GRANTED.
GRANTED.

In light of the parties’ briefing regarding PX137 (ECF Nos. 1643, 1644), PX137B (filed as

3

ECF No. 1643-1 on April 9, 2014) shall be admitted, but not to prove the truth of any matter

4

asserted therein.

5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

Dated: April 10, 2014

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER ON SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S DISCLOSURES