Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 427 Filed 11/01/18 Page 1 of 12
`
`
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`Charles K. Verhoeven (Bar No. 170151)
`charlesverhoeven@quinnemanuel.com
`David A. Perlson (Bar No. 209502)
`davidperlson@quinnemanuel.com
`50 California Street, 22nd Floor
`San Francisco, California 94111
`Telephone: (415) 875-6600
`Facsimile: (415) 875-6700
`
`Kevin P.B. Johnson (Bar No. 177129)
`kevinjohnson@quinnemanuel.com
`Victoria F. Maroulis (Bar No. 202603)
`victoriamaroulis@quinnemanuel.com
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor
`Redwood Shores, California 94065
`Telephone: (650) 801-5000
`Facsimile: (650) 801-5100
`
`Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`Samsung Research America, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., et al.,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`17
`
`
`
`v.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., et al.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. &
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.
`
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiffs,
`
`23
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.,
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., HUAWEI
`TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC., & HISILICON
`TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.
`
`
`Counterclaim-Defendants.
`
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
` CASE NO. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR
`CLARIFICATION OF THE
`COURT’S SEPT. 25, 2018 DAUBERT
`ORDER, OR IN THE
`ALTERNATIVE, LEAVE TO SERVE
`A LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL
`EXPERT REPORT
`
`
`Hearing Date: December 12, 2018
`Time: 2:00 p.m.
`Place: Courtroom 2, 17th Floor
`Judge: Hon. William H. Orrick
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-i-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT’S SEPT. 25, 2018 DAUBERT ORDER, OR IN
`THE ALTERNATIVE, LEAVE TO SERVE A LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 427 Filed 11/01/18 Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`
`TO PLAINTIFFS AND COUNTERCLAIM-DEFENDANTS HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO.,
`
`2
`
`LTD., HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC., AND
`
`3
`
`HISILICON TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`
`4
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 12, 2018 at 2 pm, or as soon thereafter as the
`
`5
`
`matter may be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable William H. Orrick, located at 450 Golden
`
`6
`
`Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102, Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs Samsung
`
`7
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung Research America, Inc.
`
`8
`
`(collectively “Samsung”) does and will hereby move for clarification of the Court’s September 25,
`
`9
`
`2018 Order on Motions for Summary Judgment, Daubert Motions, Motions to Strike and Exclude,
`
`10
`
`Dkt. 418. Specifically, Samsung requests that the Court clarify that by granting-in-part Samsung’s
`
`11
`
`Motion to Strike Dr. Jacques deLisle’s “Rebuttal Report,” it thereby authorized Samsung to serve a
`
`12
`
`limited supplemental expert report rebutting Dr. deLisle’s remaining, non-excluded opinions. In
`
`13
`
`the alternative, Samsung requests that the Court issue an Order granting Samsung leave to serve that
`
`14
`
`limited supplemental expert report.
`
`15
`
`This motion is based on this notice of motion and supporting memorandum of points and
`
`16
`
`authorities, the supporting declaration of Victoria F. Maroulis, the accompanying exhibits, reply
`
`17
`
`briefing in further support of this motion and supporting declarations and accompanying exhibits,
`
`18
`
`as well as other written or oral argument that Samsung may present to the Court.
`
`
`
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-ii-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT’S SEPT. 25, 2018 DAUBERT ORDER, OR IN
`THE ALTERNATIVE, LEAVE TO SERVE A LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 427 Filed 11/01/18 Page 3 of 12
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`
`By /s/ Victoria F. Maroulis
`Charles K. Verhoeven
`Kevin P.B. Johnson
`Victoria F. Maroulis
`Thomas D. Pease
`David A. Perlson
`
`Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`Samsung Research America, Inc.
`
`
`
`1
`
`DATED: November 1, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-iii-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT’S SEPT. 25, 2018 DAUBERT ORDER, OR IN
`THE ALTERNATIVE, LEAVE TO SERVE A LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 427 Filed 11/01/18 Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`3
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1
`
`4
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................2
`
`5
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT .........................................................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The Court Should Clarify that Its Order Permits Samsung to Serve a
`Limited Supplemental Expert Report. ........................................................................3
`
`Samsung Should Be Granted Leave to Serve a Limited Supplemental
`Expert Report Because Any Delay Is Harmless and/or Substantially
`Justified. .....................................................................................................................4
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Huawei Will Suffer No Harm Because the New Pre-Trial Deadlines
`Provide Plenty of Time for a Limited Supplemental Report and a
`Deposition. .....................................................................................................4
`
`Samsung’s Submission of a Limited Supplemental Expert Report at
`this Time Is Substantially Justified. ...............................................................6
`
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................7
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`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. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-i-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT’S SEPT. 25, 2018 DAUBERT ORDER, OR IN
`THE ALTERNATIVE, LEAVE TO SERVE A LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 427 Filed 11/01/18 Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Page
`
`Apple iPod iTunes Antitrust Litig.,
`No. 05-CV-0037 YGR, 2014 WL 4809288 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2014) ............................... 5
`
`Galentine v. Holland America Line,
` 333 F. Supp. 2d 991 (W.D. Wash. 2004) ......................................................................... 4, 5
`
`Matthew Enter., Inc. v. Chrysler Grp. LLC,
` No. 13-CV-04236-BLF, 2016 WL 4272430 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2016) ............................. 4
`
`Muscatell v. John Deere Const. & Forestry Co.,
` No. C 08-00361 JW, 2009 WL 837502 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2009) ................................. 5, 6
`
`Stonefire Grill, Inc. v. FGF Brands, Inc.,
` No. CV 11-8292-JGB(PJWx), 2013 WL 12126773 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2013) .................. 6
`
`Rules and Regulations
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) ..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c) .................................................................................................................. 1, 4, 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-ii-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT’S SEPT. 25, 2018 DAUBERT ORDER, OR IN
`THE ALTERNATIVE, LEAVE TO SERVE A LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 427 Filed 11/01/18 Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Samsung believes that the Court’s September 25, 2018 Daubert Order (Dkt. 418) granting-
`
`in-part Samsung’s motion to exclude the opinions of Dr. Jacques deLisle permits Samsung to submit
`
`a limited supplemental expert report rebutting certain remaining opinions that the Court declined to
`
`exclude. In its Daubert motion (Dkt. 331-2), Samsung moved to exclude the deLisle report in its
`
`entirety on the grounds that it consisted of improper rebuttal and prejudiced Samsung because
`
`Samsung was not practically able to prepare and submit its own expert report regarding the new
`
`opinions in the deLisle report, given that Huawei failed to disclose these opinions in a timely
`
`manner. The Court agreed in part; however, it also declined to exclude some portions of Dr.
`
`10
`
`deLisle’s report. Samsung respectfully requests that the Court clarify that Samsung is permitted to
`
`11
`
`submit a limited supplemental expert report addressing those non-excluded opinions.1
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`To the extent Samsung is mistaken about the implications of the Court’s Daubert Order,
`
`Samsung respectfully requests that the Court grant it leave to serve a supplemental expert report
`
`rebutting Dr. deLisle’s opinions that the Court declined to exclude. Rule 37(c)(1) of the Federal
`
`Rules of Civil Procedure allows a party to submit an otherwise-tardy expert report if the tardiness
`
`was either harmless or substantially justified. Here, any delay is clearly harmless and also
`
`substantially justified by the late timing and overly broad scope of Huawei’s disclosure of Dr.
`
`deLisle’s opinions.
`
`Huawei will not suffer any prejudice if Samsung is granted the opportunity to serve its
`
`proposed supplemental expert report. The proposed report will only rebut those opinions that Dr.
`
`deLisle set forth in his report, and Samsung has already informed Huawei that it will make its
`
`responding expert available for a deposition. With trial set for April 2019 at the earliest, Huawei
`
`
`
`1 To be clear, Samsung also expects to move in limine to exclude any evidence or testimony
`(from Dr. deLisle or others) regarding the substance of the Chinese Court(s) opinions on patent
`and FRAND issues as irrelevant and unduly prejudicial, and has indicated as much to Huawei.
`However, given that the new pretrial schedule in this case provides for motions in limine to be
`resolved at the March 4, 2019 pre-trial conference at the earliest, Samsung brings this issue to the
`Court’s attention now to protect its own rights to present appropriate rebuttal testimony in
`accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2) and 37.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-1-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT’S SEPT. 25, 2018 DAUBERT ORDER, OR IN
`THE ALTERNATIVE, LEAVE TO SERVE A LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 427 Filed 11/01/18 Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`
`has plenty of time to prepare for and take a deposition. Indeed, Huawei itself recently served three
`
`2
`
`supplemental expert reports, raising the likelihood that Samsung may need to prepare for and take
`
`3
`
`three additional expert depositions.
`
`4
`
`The timing of Samsung’s request is substantially justified given that Huawei caused this
`
`5
`
`situation by failing to disclose Dr. deLisle as an expert witness to opine on Chinese law and
`
`6
`
`procedure until it served the deLisle “rebuttal” report. Had Huawei properly served the deLisle
`
`7
`
`report with its other opening expert reports, Samsung would have been able to serve its proposed
`
`8
`
`responsive report along with its other rebuttal reports on the regular schedule. Moreover, the deLisle
`
`9
`
`report included improper opinions on the integrity of the Chinese legal system; this Court agreed
`
`10
`
`with Samsung and excluded those opinions. By obtaining this result, Samsung thereby narrowed
`
`11
`
`the scope of its proposed supplemental report. Any delay is both harmless and substantially
`
`12
`
`justified, and therefore the Court should grant Samsung leave to serve its proposed supplemental
`
`13
`
`expert report on Huawei.
`
`14
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`After receiving and reviewing Dr. deLisle’s purported rebuttal report, on June 5, 2018,
`
`Samsung informed Huawei that the deLisle report consisted of improper opinions “on Chinese law
`
`and procedure—issues that were not raised in Samsung’s opening reports” and that Samsung was
`
`therefore entitled to, at minimum, a responsive report addressing the new, non-rebuttal opinions in
`
`the deLisle report. Dkt. 347-13 at 99. Samsung further informed Huawei it “reserve[d] the right to
`
`seek to challenge any aspect” of the deLisle’s report “on any ground.” Id. at 100. On June 6, 2018,
`
`Huawei agreed to these points with respect to the deLisle report. Id. at 98. While Huawei agreed,
`
`as part of a broader compromise on expert discovery disputes, that Samsung should have the
`
`opportunity to respond to the new opinions, the time provided was only until June 8, 2018—during
`
`a time period that obviously already contained a number of deadlines in calendar in this case. Id. at
`
`98-99.
`
`Samsung moved to exclude Dr. deLisle’s report in its entirety as improper rebuttal less than
`
`one month later. Dkt. 335. On September 25, 2018, the Court granted Samsung’s motion in part
`
`Dkt. 409 at 82. The Court excluded as improper Dr. deLisle’s “opinions generally related to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-2-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT’S SEPT. 25, 2018 DAUBERT ORDER, OR IN
`THE ALTERNATIVE, LEAVE TO SERVE A LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 427 Filed 11/01/18 Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`
`integrity of the Chinese legal system.” Id. But it allowed Huawei to “use portions of deLisle’s
`
`2
`
`opinions properly intended to ‘diffuse [sic] the impact of Samsung’s experts’ opinions that seeking
`
`3
`
`injunction was improper[.]” Id. The Court noted that “the parties agreed that Samsung would have
`
`4
`
`the opportunity to submit a supplemental report responding to Dr. deLisle,” and acknowledged
`
`5
`
`Samsung’s reservation of its rights to object along with its point that it “could not reasonably submit
`
`6
`
`a report responding to Dr. deLisle within one week of being surprised by his report.” Id. at 81-82.
`
`7
`
`After receiving the Court’s Daubert Order, on October 1, 2018, Samsung promptly
`
`8
`
`requested that Huawei confirm it would not object to Samsung’s submission of a limited
`
`9
`
`supplemental expert report, and made clear that Huawei would be granted the opportunity to depose
`
`10
`
`the expert on his opinions well in advance of trial. Maroulis Decl., Ex. 1. After Samsung sent
`
`11
`
`several follow-up emails, and the parties met and conferred on the dispute, on October 30, 2018,
`
`12
`
`Huawei stated that it would not consent to Samsung’s submission of a supplemental expert report.
`
`13
`
`Id. Notably, Huawei, by that time had unilaterally served three supplemental expert reports of its
`
`14
`
`own, without the Court’s leave. See Maroulis Decl., ¶ 3.
`
`15
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Court Should Clarify that Its Order Permits Samsung to Serve a Limited
`Supplemental Expert Report.
`
`Samsung’s Daubert Motion was premised in part on the fact that Samsung did not have a
`
`fair and appropriate opportunity to submit an expert report regarding the issues in the deLisle report
`
`because Huawei failed to disclose Dr. deLisle as an expert witness on these issues in a timely
`
`manner. Dkt. 331-2. Indeed, the Court’s Order acknowledges this point while also specifically
`
`finding that “Dr. deLisle’s report does not directly ‘contradict’ Leonard’s opinions[.]” Dkt. 409 at
`
`81-82. The Court, however, stated that Huawei “may use portions of deLisle’s opinions properly
`
`intended to ‘diffuse [sic] the impact’ of Samsung’s experts’ opinions that seeking injunctions was
`
`improper[.]” Id. at 82. Accordingly, Samsung understands it may prepare and serve a supplemental
`
`expert report addressing the remaining opinions raised in the deLisle report for the first time on
`
`rebuttal. Huawei disagrees, and has refused to allow Samsung to serve a supplemental expert report
`
`without leave of the Court. Samsung therefore respectfully requests that the Court clarify that its
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-3-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT’S SEPT. 25, 2018 DAUBERT ORDER, OR IN
`THE ALTERNATIVE, LEAVE TO SERVE A LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 427 Filed 11/01/18 Page 9 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`
`Daubert Order allows Samsung to serve a supplemental expert report addressing the remaining
`
`2
`
`opinions in the deLisle report.
`
`3
`
`Huawei’s position appears to be that the Court did not explicitly state that Samsung was
`
`4
`
`permitted to submit a supplemental report responding to those portions of Dr. deLisle’s report that
`
`5
`
`the Court declined to exclude. Samsung respectfully submits this is an unreasonable interpretation,
`
`6
`
`and is inconsistent with both Huawei’s earlier position and with basic fairness. Huawei’s position
`
`7
`
`would likely leave the jury confused about the Chinese litigation, and would prejudice Samsung.
`
`8
`
`Huawei’s position should be rejected.
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`B.
`
`Samsung Should Be Granted Leave to Serve a Limited Supplemental Expert
`Report Because Any Delay Is Harmless and/or Substantially Justified.
`
`To the extent the Court does not agree with Samsung about the implications of the Court’s
`
`Daubert Order, the Court should grant Samsung leave to serve a limited supplemental expert report.
`
`The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allow for a party to submit an otherwise-out of time expert
`
`report if the Court finds that the delay was either “substantially justified or is harmless.” Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 37(c)(1); Galentine v. Holland America Line, 333 F. Supp. 2d 991, 993-95 (W.D. Wash.
`
`2004) (denying motion to strike tardy expert declaration where there was no evidence that the
`
`tardiness was due to bad faith and the opposing party would suffer no prejudice as it would have the
`
`opportunity to depose the expert). While “the case law is clear that Rule 37(c)(1) establishes an
`
`either/or standard in determining whether non-disclosed information is admissible,” id. at 993, any
`
`delay here is both harmless and substantially justified.
`
`1.
`
`Huawei Will Suffer No Harm Because the New Pre-Trial Deadlines Provide
`Plenty of Time for a Limited Supplemental Report and a Deposition.
`
`Huawei cannot reasonably contend that it will suffer prejudice if Samsung is permitted to
`
`23
`
`serve a limited supplemental expert report. The content of the proposed supplemental report will
`
`24
`
`be solely focused on rebutting Dr. deLisle’s remaining opinions. Matthew Enter., Inc. v. Chrysler
`
`25
`
`Grp. LLC, No. 13-CV-04236-BLF, 2016 WL 4272430, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2016) (“The proper
`
`26
`
`function of rebuttal evidence is to contradict, impeach or defuse the impact of the evidence offered
`
`27
`
`by an adverse party.”) (internal citations and quotations omitted). Huawei will not be surprised by
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-4-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT’S SEPT. 25, 2018 DAUBERT ORDER, OR IN
`THE ALTERNATIVE, LEAVE TO SERVE A LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 427 Filed 11/01/18 Page 10 of 12
`
`
`
`1
`
`the content of the proposed supplemental report as Huawei itself disclosed the opinions in the
`
`2
`
`deLisle report.
`
`3
`
`Moreover, Samsung has already informed Huawei that it may depose Samsung’s rebuttal
`
`4
`
`expert at a mutually convenient time. Given that trial will take place in April 2019 at the earliest,
`
`5
`
`Huawei has more than sufficient time to prepare for and take a single deposition. Apple iPod iTunes
`
`6
`
`Antitrust Litig., No. 05-CV-0037 YGR, 2014 WL 4809288, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2014) (“[A]s
`
`7
`
`to timeliness, even assuming plaintiffs disclosed [their expert] late, such late disclosure would be
`
`8
`
`harmless under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(c) because Apple had ample time not only to
`
`9
`
`respond to [the expert’s report]. . .but also to depose him”); Muscatell v. John Deere Const. &
`
`10
`
`Forestry Co., No. C 08-00361 JW, 2009 WL 837502, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28, 2009) (“In light
`
`11
`
`of the six months that remain until trial and Defendant’s own tardy disclosure, the Court finds that
`
`12
`
`Defendant has failed to show any prejudice that would result from allowing the parties to conduct
`
`13
`
`limited further discovery with respect to expert disclosure.”); Galentine, 333 F. Supp. 2d at 994-95
`
`14
`
`(denying motion to strike tardy expert declaration where the opposing party would suffer no
`
`15
`
`prejudice because it would have the opportunity to depose the expert).
`
`16
`
`Any claim by Huawei that it will suffer prejudice if the Court grants Samsung’s request here
`
`17
`
`is belied by the fact that Huawei, without leave or notice, served Samsung with three supplemental
`
`18
`
`expert reports on September 27, 2018. See Maroulis Decl., ¶ 3.2 Huawei thus concedes there is
`
`19
`
`ample time before trial to complete at least three supplemental expert depositions. The same time
`
`20
`
`period will allow Huawei to take an additional deposition regarding Samsung’s limited
`
`21
`
`supplemental report, if it so chooses. Huawei should not be allowed to engage in self-serving
`
`22
`
`behavior by unilaterally submitting supplemental expert reports after the close of expert discovery
`
`23
`
`while refusing Samsung’s appropriate request for a limited supplemental expert report.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`2 Samsung reserves all its rights with respect to these Huawei supplemental reports pending
`further developments and/or meet and confer.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-5-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT’S SEPT. 25, 2018 DAUBERT ORDER, OR IN
`THE ALTERNATIVE, LEAVE TO SERVE A LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 427 Filed 11/01/18 Page 11 of 12
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Samsung’s Submission of a Limited Supplemental Expert Report at this
`Time Is Substantially Justified.
`
`Samsung was not practically able to submit a supplemental expert report addressing all of
`
`Dr. deLisle’s opinions at the proposed June 8, 2018 deadline. As an initial matter, Samsung did not
`
`receive any notice that Huawei intended to serve an expert report targeted at opinions on Chinese
`
`law and procedure that Samsung’s opening expert reports did not address. Stonefire Grill, Inc. v.
`
`FGF Brands, Inc., No. CV 11-8292-JGB (PJWx), 2013 WL 12126773, at *4-5 (C.D. Cal. June 27,
`
`2013) (finding defendant’s delay in designating its damages expert to be substantially justified
`
`where plaintiff did not disclose its damages theory until its Rule 26 disclosures). And as the Court
`
`has recognized, the deLisle report included improper, and now-excluded, “opinions generally
`
`related to the integrity of the Chinese legal system.” Dkt 409 at 82. Indeed, upon reviewing the
`
`deLisle report, Samsung objected to the report on the grounds that Dr. deLisle improperly opined
`
`on “issues that were not raised in Samsung’s opening reports.” Dkt. 347-13 at 99. Given the other
`
`then-disputed issues of expert discovery between the parties and the timeline for expert discovery,
`
`it was not reasonable nor practical for Samsung to obtain and disclose a rebuttal to all of the new
`
`opinions in the deLisle report “within one week of being surprised by his report.” Dkt. 409 at 82.
`
`Samsung also believed that the deLisle report should be excluded in its entirety as improper rebuttal,
`
`as set forth in its Daubert motion. Dkt. 335. Any delay in disclosure of this report would not have
`
`occurred had Huawei properly disclosed Dr. deLisle as an expert witness in a timely manner, and
`
`had it not included the additional, now-excluded opinions on the integrity of the Chinese legal
`
`system that the Court found to be improper.
`
`Samsung would be severely prejudiced if Huawei is allowed to present an unrebutted expert
`
`opinion on any issues relating to the Chinese proceedings. See e.g., Muscatell, 2009 WL 837502,
`
`at *2 (“In contrast, Plaintiff may be prejudiced if he is unable to disclose and ultimately offer the
`
`testimony of experts in support of his case”). Now that the Court has excluded some, though not
`
`all, of the deLisle report, and in other respects narrowed the issues for trial in its September 25, 2018
`
`Order, a limited supplemental report responding to the remaining opinions in the deLisle report at
`
`this time is substantially justified.
`
`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. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-6-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT’S SEPT. 25, 2018 DAUBERT ORDER, OR IN
`THE ALTERNATIVE, LEAVE TO SERVE A LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT
`
`

`

`Case 3:16-cv-02787-WHO Document 427 Filed 11/01/18 Page 12 of 12
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Samsung respectfully requests that this Court issue an Order
`
`allowing Samsung to serve a limited supplemental expert report rebutting Dr. deLisle’s remaining
`
`opinions in his expert report.
`
`
`
`DATED: November 1, 2018
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
`SULLIVAN, LLP
`
`By
`
`/s/ Victoria F. Maroulis
`Charles K. Verhoeven
`Kevin P.B. Johnson
`Victoria F. Maroulis
`Thomas D. Pease
`David A. Perlson
`
`Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
`Research America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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. 16-cv-02787-WHO
`-7-
`SAMSUNG’S MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE COURT’S SEPT. 25, 2018 DAUBERT ORDER, OR IN
`THE ALTERNATIVE, LEAVE TO SERVE A LIMITED SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT
`
`