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

Filing 1721

ORDER REGARDING APPLE'S OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG'S DISCLOSURES RE 1709-3. Signed by Judge Lucy Koh on 4/17/14. (lhklc5S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/17/2014)

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 APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO
SAMSUNG’S DISCLOSURES
REGARDING CHANDLER, CHASE,
DICARLO, ERDEM, RANGEL,
REIBSTEIN, SCHILLER, AND
WINSHIP

On April 16, 2014, Apple filed objections to Samsung’s disclosures. ECF No. 1709-3. On
April 16, 2014, Samsung filed a response. ECF No. 1710-3. 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 Apple’s objections as follows:
APPLE OBJECTION
Sarah Chandler
DX489 (pp. 1-28, 32-55,
68-91) (Apple teardowns)
Jeffrey Chase
DX328 (Freedman e-mail)

COURT’S RULING ON OBJECTION
Overruled.

Sustained.

1
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER ON APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S DISCLOSURES

1
2

SDX3602 (Windows
Mobile 5.0 video)
Nick DiCarlo
DX493 (news summaries)

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Tulin Erdem
DX404 (Apple market
research)
SDX3544 (Hauser article
excerpt)
SDX3541 (Erdem numbers)
Art Rangel
6/25/13 Depo. at 40-42,
132-34
David Reibstein
DX454A (Reibstein pretest
data)
SDX3171, SDX3138,
SDX3139, SDX3175
(Hauser excerpts)
Philip Schiller
7/23/13 Depo. at 87:2488:15
Daniel Winship
DX319, DX320, DX323
(Evolution 2.4 code and
user guide)

17

Dated: April 17, 2014

Overruled. The document shall not be considered for the truth of
the matters asserted therein.
Sustained.
Sustained.
Sustained.
Overruled.

Overruled.
Sustained. The parties may not circumvent limits on objections
by arguing that the same objection applies to other exhibits.

Overruled.

Overruled.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Overruled.

19

_________________________________
LUCY H. KOH
United States District Judge

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Case No.: 12-CV-00630-LHK
ORDER ON APPLE’S OBJECTIONS TO SAMSUNG’S DISCLOSURES