Source: http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=2012112121031884
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 23:15:59+00:00

Document:
The magistrate judge, the Hon. Paul Grewal, in Apple v. Samsung has ruled after today's emergency hearing, and Samsung's motion to compel Apple to turn over the agreement it just entered into with HTC was granted.
So the media articles that referenced FOSSPatents and wrote that the Samsung motion was mooted because Samsung had agreed to accept a redacted version were flat out wrong on the facts. The motion was not only not mooted, it went to oral argument today, and Samsung won. And that's not all it won.
At the hearing, Samsung explained that it needs an unredacted version of the settlement agreement because the financial terms are probative of arguments Samsung raises in its opposition to Apple’s permanent injunction motion. Despite Samsung’s assertions that consumers’ willingness to pay a premium for patented features of a product is not relevant to a consumer demand inquiry, it argues that to the degree Apple prevails on the contrary argument,9 the licensing fees with HTC are relevant to the degree of consumer demand for Apple’s patented features. Samsung also asserts that the financial terms support its argument that a royalty is a more suitable alternative to a permanent injunction.
HTC’s only response is that the potential probative value of the terms is outweighed by the risk to HTC from disclosure of the terms.
The court is not persuaded by HTC’s argument. Although the court is more than a little skeptical of Samsung’s arguments regarding the financial terms, Rule 26 supplies a broad standard of relevance.10 Many third parties to this case have had their licensing agreements disclosed – without any redaction of financial terms – subject to an Attorneys-Eyes-Only designation because the confidential financial terms were clearly relevant to the dispute between Apple and Samsung.11 HTC is not entitled to special treatment, especially when it has recognized the general sufficiency of the protective order and the integrity of Samsung’s outside counsel.
6 See Docket No. 2144-3.
7 See Docket No. 2144 (citing Docket No. 2054 at 7).
8 See Docket No. 2151.
9 See, e.g., Docket No. 2130 (Hauser Declaration).
10 See Gonzales, 234 F.R.D. at 680.
11 See, e.g., Docket No. 1414 (listing trial exhibits with unredacted third-party financial terms).
The fact that Samsung gets to read it all doesn't obviously mean we will too. It's for the lawyers, "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only".
Because Samsung was diligent in seeking the amendment to the scheduling order and because the court believes a full record is important to this case, Samsung’s motion to compel depositions of the three experts is GRANTED.
Apple will also get to do two more depositions that it wanted if Samsung got to do the ones it wanted. So Apple will get to depose Dr. R. Sukumar and Corey Kerstetter; Samsung will depose Dr. John Hauser, Marylee Robinson, and Dr. Karan Singh. All the depositions are limited to 3 hours each.
I'll work on getting the entire order up for you.
Earlier this month Samsung asked that the court force Apple to turn over its settlement agreement with HTC, and today US Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal granted that requested. According to Samsung, the document could play a vital role in determining whether it will need to take any of its products off the market in the wake of the $1.049 billion verdict Apple won back in August. If Apple licensed some of its unique user experience patents, Samsung argues, then Cupertino is clearly fine with competitors using that IP as long as it receives money in return — and since Apple will be receiving a payout in connection with the verdict, the extra step of an injunction isn't justified.
Daryl Crone, a lawyer for Samsung, told Grewal by phone in court yesterday that if HTC agreed to pay Apple a small sum for licenses of patents at issue in the San Jose case, that could be used to undermine Apple’s argument that it has suffered “irreparable harm,” a standard required to win an injunction barring sales of Samsung’s products.
So that's why Samsung feels it needs it and why we don't need to see it, in that the judge will know and the parties will know, and it can be a factor in the judge's final decision on whether or not to issue an injunction.
to a reply brief, and the court held a hearing on the two motions earlier today. Based on the papers and the parties’ arguments at the hearing, the court GRANTS Samsung’s motion to compel depositions, GRANTS Apple’s request for two additional depositions, and GRANTS Samsung’s motion to compel production of the HTC settlement agreement.
The court first addresses Samsung’s motion to compel production of the settlement agreement and then turns to the motion to compel depositions from Apple’s experts.
the confidential financial terms were clearly relevant to the dispute between Apple and Samsung.11 HTC is not entitled to special treatment, especially when it has recognized the general sufficiency of the protective order and the integrity of Samsung’s outside counsel.
Apple contends that the three experts Samsung seeks to depose did not offer “new” evidence but merely responded to Samsung’s new experts and evidence in its opposition to the permanent injunction.18	According to Apple, Hauser’s declaration was offered only to rebut a new argument from Samsung regarding consumer demand for patented features; Robinson’s declaration was offered only as a supplemental calculation of damages based on information Samsung dilatorily disclosed; and Singh’s declaration serves only to rebut Samsung’s argument that it had “implemented non-infringing design-arounds.”19	Apple asserts that Samsung has had ample opportunity to depose or cross-examine each of the three experts at earlier stages of the trial.
depositions new assertions by Apple’s experts allows full development of the record in advance of the parties’ hearing before Judge Koh.
Apple also suggests Samsung was not diligent in moving for the depositions. Samsung brought this motion within one week of the date Apple filed its reply with the declarations at issue.22	Although Apple suggests that one week shows a lack of diligence, a careful review of the meet-and-confer emails shows that Samsung raised the issue with Apple only three days after Apple filed its reply, and that the parties engaged in negotiations regarding the depositions and expedited briefing.23	The emails show that Samsung was diligent in pursuing recourse after Apple’s reply was filed. The emails also reflect that Apple participated in determining the dates for the motion, so it can hardly claim now to be prejudiced by a late filing date.
As an alternative to its primary position, Apple asks that if Samsung’s motion for depositions is granted, it should be permitted to take depositions of Dr. R. Sukumar and Corey Kerstetter because they are the Samsung declarants to whom Hauser and Robinson responded. Again, in light of the need for a full record and the well-recognized legal doctrine of “what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,” the court will permit Apple its additional deposition requests as well.
before Judge Koh, page limits, supplemental briefing, and deadlines are not issues for the undersigned to determine. Judge Koh has set a briefing schedule and the court advises the parties to heed her directions regarding briefing for the preliminary injunction motion.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no later than November 29, 2012, Apple shall produce Dr. John Hauser, Marylee Robinson, and Dr. Karan Singh for depositions of no longer than three hours.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no later than November 29, 2012, Samsung shall produce Corey Kerstetter and Dr. R. Sukumar for depositions of no longer than three hours.
1 See Docket No. 2144.
2 See Docket No. 2141.
3 Adobe Systems Inc. v. Coffee Cup Partners, Inc., No. C 11-2243 CW, 2012 WL 3877783, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2012) (citing Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609).
4 See Soto v. City of Concord, 162 F.R.D. 603, 610 (N.D. Cal. 1995).
5 See Gonzales v. Google Inc. [PDF], 234 F.R.D. 674, 680 (N.D. Cal. 2006) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
12 See Docket No. 2151.
16 See Docket No. 2149-1.
20 See Edwards v. Toys “R” Us, 527 F. Supp. 2d 1197, 1205 n.31 (C.D. Cal. 2007); cf. Terrell v. Contra Costa Cnty., 232 Fed. Appx. 626, 629 n.2 (9th Cir. 2007).
21 See Docket No. 2105 (quoting Docket No. 2093).
22 See Docket No. 2141.
23 See Docket No. 2141 Ex. 1.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.