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

Filing 1720

ORDER REGARDING SAMSUNG'S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE'S DISCLOSURES RE 1710-3. Signed by Judge Lucy Koh on 4/17/2014. (lhklc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2014)

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

9

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

SAN JOSE DIVISION

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

)
)
)
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. )
)
APPLE, INC., a California corporation,

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

Samsung has filed objections to Apple’s disclosures. ECF No. 1710-3. Apple has filed a
response. ECF No. 1709-3. 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:
Exhibit
Number
Sarah
Chandler
Depo. 12:3-9
Nick DiCarlo

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION
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
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

PX 218
WSJ Article
(“Samsung
Tweaks How it
Calculates
Marketing
Costs”)
Tulin Erdem
AT&T Galaxy
S4 website
AT&T Galaxy
S3 website
Art Rangel
Rangel
4/5/2012 Dep.
at 147:8-19
Dr. Reibstein
Galaxy S4
Verizon and
Samsung
websites
AT&T Galaxy
S3 website and
Samsung
Galaxy S3
website 
Philip Schiller
Schiller
7/23/2013 Dep.
at 310:21311:11
Schiller
7/23/2013 Dep.
at 311:17312:5

Overruled. This document shall not be considered for the truth of the matters
asserted therein.
Overruled. The document may be used solely for refreshing recollection, but will
not be admitted as an exhibit or presented to the jury.

Sustained. Apple has agreed to withdraw this exhibit.
Overruled. The document may be used solely for refreshing recollection, but will
not be admitted as an exhibit or presented to the jury.
Sustained in part and overruled in part. Apple may use 147:11-19, and may use
the part of line 10 which states, “You’re familiar with – with,” but Apple may not
use lines 8-9 or the first part of line 10, which states “slide to unlock patent.”
Sustained. Apple has agreed to withdraw these websites.

Overruled. The documents may be used solely for refreshing recollection, but
will not be admitted as exhibits or presented to the jury. 

Overruled.

Overruled.

Samsung requests to seal pages 6-14, 16-24, 26, 28-30, 32-36, and 39-44 of DX 437A,

23

which is the color version of DX 437. ECF No. 1710-3 at 6. Having considered Samsung’s motion,

24

and compelling reasons having been shown, the Court seals pages 6-14, 16-24, 26, 28-30, 32-36,

25

and 39-44 of DX 437A as requested. The Court previously sealed these precise pages of DX 437.

26

ECF No. 1628.

27

Dated: April 17, 2014

28

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

2
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER ON SAMSUNG’S OBJECTIONS TO APPLE’S DISCLOSURES