Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.

Opinion

ORDER RE DISCOVERY MOTIONS

(Re: Docket Nos. 598, 599, 600, 611, 603, 604, 604, 606, 607, 613)

In this patent infringement action, Plaintiff Apple Inc. ("Apple") and Defendants and counter-claimants Samsung Electronics  [*8] Co., LTD., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (collectively "Samsung") bring to the court nine additional discovery motions on shortened time. Several of these motions seek enforcement or clarification of earlier court orders. Two motions present opposing sides of a dispute relating to the appropriate form of protective order after a break-down in the parties' negotiation for a stipulated solution. The remaining motions address new topics that have arisen in the past month of active discovery efforts on both sides. On January 19, 2012, the parties appeared for over six hours of oral argument.

In light of the substantial volume of material presented and the accelerated schedule in this case, the court - for the most part - will resist the temptation to offer a lengthy account of its reasons and analysis, and simply rules as follows. All production subject to this order must be completed on a rolling basis and no later than February 3, 2012, with priority placed on completing relevant production no later than three-days prior to any deposition.

A. Competing Motions for Entry of Protective Order (Docket Nos. 599 and 607)

Each party moves for entry  [*9] of its version of the stipulated protective order ("PO") that has been under negotiation for several months. Apple contends that the parties effectively had agreed to submit its proposed PO when Samsung reneged and proposed an alternate confidentiality structure in an attempt to get around the court's December 22, 2011 order concerning the dissemination of confidential material to an expert witness. Samsung responds that its position is necessitated not by the treatment of any single expert, but by the adverse effect on all experts and non-testifying experts and consultants caused by the inflexible structure of Apple's proposed PO.

The main difference between the parties' proposals lies with the confidentiality designation(s), for which Apple proposes a single-tier ("Highly Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only ("AEO")") and Samsung proposes two tiers ("Confidential" and "Highly Confidential-AEO"). Apple's single-tier would allow disclosure of marked material to expert witnesses, including non-testifying experts and consultants, only after the party seeking to disclose has provided notice and an opportunity to the other side to object and intercede. Apple argues that its PO is consistent  [*10] with the parties' practice thus far in this litigation and in concurrent litigation before the International Trade Commission ("ITC"), and thus averts the risk of increased motion practice based on shifting to a two-tier structure. Samsung argues that rather than simply maintaining the status quo, the final PO should balance the protections sought by both parties with the well-established practice of retaining undisclosed, non-testifying experts and consultants, as well as being able to seek re-designation of materials that have been improperly over-designated.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.