UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
July 12, 2011
APPLE INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION,
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A KOREAN BUSINESS ENTITY;
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., A NEW YORK CORPORATION;
SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME
Briefing on Apple's Motion for Expedited Trial and Case Management Conference ("Motion to 22 Expedite on July 21, 2011. In its Motion to Expedite, Apple requests that a Case Management Defendants filed an opposition to the Motion to Shorten Time on July 5, 2011, and Apple filed a 26 reply on July 6, 2011.
Pursuant to the Civil Local Rules, a motion to shorten time must identify "the substantial harm or prejudice that would occur" if the Court did not grant the time modification requested.
On Friday, July 1, 2011, Plaintiff Apple, Inc. filed a Motion to Expedite Trial and Case Management Conference ("Motion to Expedite"), and also filed a Motion to Shorten Time for Shorten Time"). In its Motion to Shorten Time, Apple requests that the Court hear the Motion to Conference also be held on July 21, 2011, and seeks a trial date in February 2012. The Samsung Civ. L.R. 6-3(a). In its Motion to Shorten Time, Apple argues that expedited briefing and hearing 2 is required because "each day that Samsung's products remain for sale is another day that Apple 3 continues to suffer harm." Mot. to Shorten Time at 1, ECF No. 84. Apple contends that if the Motion to Expedite is heard on a normal briefing schedule, the schedule governing this action will 5 remain uncertain for several additional weeks and that such delay would hamper the parties' ability 6 to work toward an early trial date. In its opposition brief, Samsung counters that a few weeks of 7 uncertainty is unlikely to cause substantial harm or prejudice to a party as sophisticated as Apple. 8
Samsung also points out that Apple delayed filing the Motion to Expedite until approximately two-9 and-a-half months after filing its Complaint. Finally, Samsung argues that given the complex 10 nature of this case, Samsung requires more, not less, time to prepare a response to Apple's Motion shortened briefing and hearing schedule for its Motion to Expedite. The Court has already granted Apple expedited discovery, thereby providing Apple an opportunity to obtain preliminary relief in 15 this action. Moreover, Apple indicated at the May 12, 2011 hearing that it had been aware of its 16 infringement claims for at least a year and engaged in negotiations with Samsung during that time.
See Transcript of May 12, 2011 Proceedings before Judge Koh at 6:10-20, ECF No. 109 ("there 18 have been extended efforts . . . to resolve this problem short of litigation. . . . they've been going 19 on for at least a year"). The Court agrees with Samsung that the length of time Apple has been 20 aware of its claims and the long history of infringement alleged in the complaint undermine Apple's claims of urgency to some extent. Furthermore, if the Court grants an expedited trial 22 schedule, it is unlikely that a few weeks delay in setting that schedule or commencing formal 23 discovery will have any serious impact on the sophisticated parties in this case. A Case Management Conference is already scheduled for August 24, 2011, and the Court is not persuaded 25 that issues of scheduling and case management must be addressed prior to that date. Accordingly, 26
Apple's Motion to Shorten Time is DENIED. Apple's Motion to Expedite shall be briefed and 27 heard as follows:
(1) Samsung's opposition brief is due July 15, 2011, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(a).
The Court agrees that Apple has not established substantial harm or prejudice justifying a
(2) Apple's reply brief is due July 22, 2011, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-3(c).
(3) The Court will address the Motion to Expedite, as well as any other scheduling and case management issues, at the Case Management Conference on August 24, 2011. If oral argument is unnecessary, the Court may issue an order prior to the Conference.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.