If you have been paying close attention to Apple vs Samsung case (and if you are, I am sure you are getting sick of Apple’s continues attacks on Android, just the way I am getting sick of it) you will be aware that Apple recently refused to disclose when it learned about foreman Hogan’s previous court cases [you can read more about why it refused here].
Samsung seems to have made some success as the judge Lucy Koh will hear oral argument about on December 6th when she will be listening to the entire case on the same day.
In an order she said:
On October 30, 2012, Samsung filed a motion to compel Apple to disclose the circumstances and timing of Apple’s discovery of certain information regarding the jury foreperson. ECF No. 2108. On November 2, 2012, Apple filed an opposition. ECF No. 2118. At the December 6, 2012 hearing, the Court will consider the questions of whether the jury foreperson concealed information during voir dire, whether any concealed information was material, and whether any concealment constituted misconduct. An assessment of such issues is intertwined with the question of whether and when Apple had a duty to disclose the circumstances and timing of its discovery of information about the foreperson. Accordingly, the Court will address Samsung’s motion to compel at the December 6, 2012 hearing. If the Court grants Samsung’s motion to compel, the Court will likely order supplemental briefing before ruling on Samsung’s motion for judgment as a matter of law.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
While it’s good news for Samsung that it has succeed in getting this judge to at least consider this, the not so good news is that this judge is seemingly not convinced whether this disclosure matters or not. As Pamela Jones of Groklaw writes:
I wonder what it would take to convince her. But if she wanted to be convinced, why block Samsung’s reply brief? Is she so busy she forgot about where we are in the process? Normally, motions go like this: 1) Party A files a motion, 2) Party B opposes, and then 3) Party A gets to reply to the opposition. Then there is oral argument if needed, and then the judge rules. Here, we’ve taken steps 1 and 2, and there’s a judge ruling there will be oral argument, but there’s no step 3. That’s been skipped over.
However it doesn’t mean that’s good news for Apple. Jones further writes:
…I were Apple, I’d be a bit worried about this ruling, and I’d take it that she does want to know why Apple won’t answer a simple question like when it learned about the problem in voir dire. It struck me as suspicious, so maybe it did her as well.
Samsung Beats Apple In Sanctions
In addition, if you remember there were quite a lot of sanctions against each company. Each party was supposed to pay for discovery issues. Samsung has beaten Apple as Apple has to pay an amount of $160,069.00 as the sanction award from the court’s July 11 order. On the contrary Samsung will have to pay only $21,554.14 as the sanction award from the court’s April 23 order.