You won't be Apple if you are not arrogant.
Apple has now declined to answer Samsung's question in its motion that when did Cupertino learn about the jury foreman's previous court case with Seagate. Apple in its response says that it is not compelled to respond as it was Samsung who accused Hogan of misconduct and not Apple.
Samsung’s motion to compel Apple to disclose what it knew about juror Velvin Hogan fails because only Samsung—not Apple—accuses Mr. Hogan of misconduct. What Samsung knew about Mr. Hogan bears directly on whether Samsung waived any objection to Mr. Hogan because it knew or could have discovered the basis for its objection before the verdict. Apple does not accuse Mr. Hogan of misconduct so what Apple knew is irrelevant. Not surprisingly, Samsung is unable to cite a single case that holds that the opposing party’s knowledge is relevant to whether the objecting party waived jury misconduct objections. Nor has Samsung made the showing needed to obtain Apple’s attorney work product.
There can be many reasons why Apple doesn't want to respond and one reason could be that Apple did know about this case before. What raises many eyebrows is that Apple had asked the same question to Samsung and Galaxy maker had replied that they learned about it when Hogan started to talk to media. Groklaw reported:
Samsung provided the information, that it was only after he began talking to the media, revealing details that he had not mentioned in voir dire.
So while Samsung disclosed that they learned it after the verdict, Apple is refusing to disclose which many imply that the company did know about it.
But does it matter? Is it possible Hogan (a techie) who almost lost his house due to Seagate won't hold any grudges against Samsung which saved Seagate?
Pamela Jones of Groklaw opines:
You certainly can hold a grudge against someone who sued you to take your house away from you, maybe until the day you die.
So if Apple did know that Hogan was involved in a case with Seagate it may matter. Won't the chances of a verdict going against my opponent increase if I learn that the foreman holds grudges against my enemy? Will I want to disclose this fact and get such a foreman removed? Will I shoot at my own foot?
The reason Apple says it doesn't need to answer to Samsung's request is, as Jones writes:
Then Apple makes the surprising claim -- after threatening Samsung with a motion to compel if it didn't answer the same question it now refuses to answer itself -- that it doesn't have to answer, because it's attorney work product. Again, if it felt that was so, why did it ask Samsung for it?
It will be interesting to see how Judge Koh will handle the jury misconduct.