Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00986/USCOURTS-cand-3_08-cv-00986-43/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.

ATTORNEYS 

A

T

LAW

MINNEAPOLIS

1

2

3

4

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. CV-08-0986-SI STIPULATION RE: 

EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATION 

William H. Manning (pro hac vice)

E-mail: WHManning@rkmc.com 

Brad P. Engdahl (pro hac vice)

E-mail: BPEngdahl@rkmc.com 

Samuel L. Walling (pro hac vice)

E-mail: SLWalling@rkmc.com 

Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.

2800 LaSalle Plaza 

800 LaSalle Avenue 

Minneapolis, MN 55402 

Telephone: 612-349-8500 

Facsimile: 612-339-4181 

John P. Bovich (Bar No. 150688) 

E-mail: JBovich@reedsmith.com 

Reed Smith LLP

101 Second Street, Suite 1800 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Telephone: 415-543-8700 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and 

Counterdefendants Advanced Micro 

Devices, Inc., et al. 

Robert T. Haslam (Bar No. 71134) 

E-mail: RHaslam@cov.com 

Covington & Burling LLP

333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 700 

Redwood Shores, CA 94065 

Telephone: 650-632-4700 

Facsimile: 650-632-4800 

Christine S. Haskett (Bar No. 188053) 

E-mail: CHaskett@cov.com 

Covington & Burling LLP 

One Front Street 

San Francisco, CA 94111 

Telephone: 415-591-6000 

Facsimile: 415-591-6091 

Alan H. Blankenheimer (Bar. No. 218713) 

E-mail: ABlankenheimer@cov.com 

Covington & Burling LLP

9191 Towne Centre Drive, 6th Floor 

San Diego, CA 92122 

Telephone: 858-678-1801 

Facsimile: 858-678-1601 

Attorneys for Defendants and 

Counterclaimants Samsung Electronics Co., 

Ltd., et al. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, 

INC., et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., 

LTD., et al., 

Defendants. 

Case. No. CV-08-0986-SI 

STIPULATION REGARDING 

EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATION FOR 

DOCUMENTS OFFERED AT TRIAL 

[Civil L.R. 7-12] 

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and ATI Technologies, ULC (collectively “AMD”), 

and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Semiconductor, Inc.; Samsung Austin 

Case 3:08-cv-00986-SI Document 305 Filed 02/10/10 Page 1 of 6
ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.

ATTORNEYS 

A

T

LAW

MINNEAPOLIS

1

2

3

4

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. CV-08-0986-SI - 2 - STIPULATION RE: 

EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATION 

Semiconductor, LLC; Samsung Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Telecommunications 

America, LLC; and Samsung Digital Imaging Co., Ltd. (collectively “Samsung”) jointly 

submit this Stipulation. This Stipulation shall apply only to this case, captioned Advanced 

Micro Devices, Inc., et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. CV-08-0986-

SI.

WHEREAS, given the number of asserted patents and claims, the complexity of 

the asserted claims and defenses, the volume of documents that the parties will use to 

support these claims and defenses at trial in this case, and the unnecessary burdens the 

parties would face if required to establish the authenticity and applicability of hearsay 

exceptions to these documents, it is in both parties’ interests to enter into a stipulation that 

addresses these requirements. 

WHEREAS, the parties will produce to each other thousands of e-mails in this case 

but will use only a select few, and the burdens of locating and anticipating the e-mails 

each party will ultimately use are significant, it is in both parties’ interests to enter into a 

stipulation that provides the parties with notice of any e-mail a party intends to use at a 

deposition or at trial. 

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-12, IT IS HEREBY 

STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between AMD and Samsung that: 

1. SAMSUNG’S AGREEMENT. Subject to the exceptions enumerated herein, for 

any document AMD seeks to introduce into evidence that Samsung produced in this case 

and that was either (1) created by Samsung, or (2) reproduced verbatim, with no additions 

or changes, from materials Samsung has created and produced as “HIGHLY 

CONFIDENTIAL – RESTRICTED ACCESS ONLY”, Samsung agrees that: 

A. The document is not hearsay because it either: 

1. Qualifies as a business record within the meaning of Federal Rule of 

Evidence 803(6); or 

2. Constitutes an admission by a party opponent within the meaning of 

Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2); and 

Case 3:08-cv-00986-SI Document 305 Filed 02/10/10 Page 2 of 6
ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.

ATTORNEYS 

A

T

LAW

MINNEAPOLIS

1

2

3

4

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. CV-08-0986-SI - 3 - STIPULATION RE: 

EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATION 

B. The document is authentic because the requirements of Federal Rule of 

Evidence 901(a) are met.

Samsung reserves all other objections. 

2. AMD’S AGREEMENT. Subject to the exceptions enumerated herein, for any 

document Samsung seeks to introduce into evidence that AMD produced in this case and 

that was either (1) created by AMD, or (2) reproduced verbatim, with no additions or 

changes, from materials AMD has created and produced as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL 

– RESTRICTED ACCESS ONLY”, AMD agrees that: 

A. The document is not hearsay because it either: 

1. Qualifies as a business record within the meaning of Federal Rule of 

Evidence 803(6); or 

2. Constitutes an admission by a party opponent within the meaning of 

Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2); and 

B. The document is authentic because the requirements of Federal Rule of 

Evidence 901(a) are met.

AMD reserves all other objections. 

3. SUMMARIES AND DEMONSTRATIVES. For the avoidance of doubt, 

Sections 1 and 2 do not apply to summaries, demonstrative exhibits or other materials 

created by one party based on documents produced by the adverse party or its counsel that 

are not verbatim duplicates of the latter. 

4. NATIVE DOCUMENTS INCLUDED. Documents “produced in this case” as 

used in sections 1 and 2 include .PS, .PDF or .TIF versions of documents produced in a 

native format—including but not limited to .XLS, .GUL, .GDS and native circuit 

schematic files—to which the receiving party has attached the appropriate Bates number 

and the proper confidentiality designation. The parties hereby attest that they have taken 

and will continue to take the appropriate precautions to prevent material alteration of the 

substance of documents produced in native format. 

Case 3:08-cv-00986-SI Document 305 Filed 02/10/10 Page 3 of 6
ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.

ATTORNEYS 

A

T

LAW

MINNEAPOLIS

1

2

3

4

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. CV-08-0986-SI - 4 - STIPULATION RE: 

EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATION 

5. CHALLENGE PROCEDURE. Sections 1 and 2 shall not prevent a party from 

challenging the authenticity of, or the applicability of the Hearsay Rule to, any document 

referenced in those sections, provided that the following procedures are observed: 

A. CHALLENGES. 

1. All challenges must be made: 

a. In good faith; 

b. In writing with the basis for the challenge set forth in detail; 

c. Not less than 90 days before the parties’ Pretrial Conference; 

2. A party’s total number of challenges shall not exceed an 

unreasonable amount. 

B. MEET-AND-CONFER. The parties must meet-and-confer in good faith not 

less than 7 days after the challenge is presented.

C. DEPOSITION. Should the parties’ meet-and-confer fail to result in the 

withdrawal of the challenge, the challenging party must make reasonable 

efforts to make available for deposition a witness with knowledge of the 

challenged document and its contents. The deposition must: 

1. Commence within 30 days of the meet-and-confer; and 

2. Address only the authenticity of, or applicability of a hearsay 

exception to, the challenged document. 

D. FAILURE TO COMPLY. If a party fails to comply with any of the 

procedures set forth above in raising and pursuing a given challenge, the 

challenge is withdrawn and shall not be reissued. 

6. HEARSAY WITHIN HEARSAY EXCEPTION. Sections 1 through 5 shall not 

prevent a party from objecting at trial to the admissibility of any document referenced in 

those sections on the grounds that portions of the document constitute hearsay within 

hearsay and should be excluded under the Hearsay Rule. Upon such objection the 

offering party must demonstrate that the contested portions conform with an exception to 

the Hearsay Rule as provided in the Federal Rules of Evidence. 

Case 3:08-cv-00986-SI Document 305 Filed 02/10/10 Page 4 of 6
ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.

ATTORNEYS 

A

T

LAW

MINNEAPOLIS

1

2

3

4

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. CV-08-0986-SI - 5 - STIPULATION RE: 

EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATION 

7. THIRD-PARTY DOCUMENTS EXCEPTION. Sections 1 through 6 shall not 

apply to documents created by a third party in this case. The parties will attempt to 

address the admissibility of these documents at a later date, prior to the non-expert 

discovery cutoff. 

8. PRIOR AGREEMENTS EXCEPTION. Sections 1 through 5 shall not apply to 

documents the parties have previously agreed are authentic and within an exception to the 

Hearsay Rule, either on the record during deposition or in a separate writing. 

9. E-MAIL AGREEMENT. The parties shall identify to one another in advance, 

all e-mails produced in this case by any party or non-party that they will use at trial or at a 

deposition; in accordance with the following timeframes: 

A. For e-mail to be used as an exhibit at a deposition: 7 calendar days in 

advance of the date on which the deposition is scheduled to be held.

B. For e-mail to be used as an exhibit at trial: 3 court days in advance of the 

date on which the noticing party will use the e-mail.

This section does not apply to e-mails used only for impeachment, or to refresh a 

witness’s recollection. 

DATED: February 9, 2010 ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.

By:_______________________________________

 William H. Manning 

 Brad P. Engdahl 

Samuel L. Walling 

ATTORNEYS FOR ADVANCED MICRO 

DEVICES, INC. AND ATI TECHNOLOGIES, 

ULC

Case 3:08-cv-00986-SI Document 305 Filed 02/10/10 Page 5 of 6
ROBINS, KAPLAN, MILLER & CIRESI L.L.P.

ATTORNEYS 

A

T

LAW

MINNEAPOLIS

1

2

3

4

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. CV-08-0986-SI - 6 - STIPULATION RE: 

EVIDENTIARY FOUNDATION 

DATED: February 9, 2010 COVINGTON & BURLING LLP

By:_/s/ Alan H. Blankenheimer_______________

 Robert T. Haslam 

 Christine Saunders Haskett 

 Alan H. Blankenheimer 

ATTORNEYS FOR SAMSUNG 

ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.; SAMSUNG 

SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.; SAMSUNG 

AUSTIN SEMICONDUCTOR, LLC; SAMSUNG 

ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.; SAMSUNG 

TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC; 

AND SAMSUNG DIGITAL IMAGING CO., 

LTD.

Plaintiffs’ counsel attests that concurrence in 

the filing of this document has been obtained 

from the above-named signatory. 

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED. 

February __, 2010 _______________________________________

Honorable Susan Illston 

 United States District Judge 

Case 3:08-cv-00986-SI Document 305 Filed 02/10/10 Page 6 of 6