Judge denies Samsung's 'me too' evidence spoliation filing

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
In an order filed late Thursday, Apple v. Samsung Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal denied Samsung's request that the jury be told Apple may have destroyed email evidence pertinent to the case.

As noted by The Verge, the rationale and late timing of Samsung's filing is brought into question in Judge Grewal's order: "The fact that a timely motion brought by the other side yielded an instruction that could harm the moving party?s chances with the jury, and 'fairness' somehow demands a similar instruction as to both parties. Except that it doesn't."

From the order:
There is nothing at all unfair about denying relief to one party but not the other when the one but not the other springs into action long after any rational person would say it could have done so. The court has bent itself into a pretzel accommodating the scheduling challenges of this case. But at some point the accommodation must end, lest the hundreds of other parties in civil rights, Social Security, and other cases also presently before the undersigned and presiding judge might reasonably ask: what makes the parties in this patent case so special?
Samsung's motion, first filed in July, was in response to an Apple-won adverse inference jury instruction over the Korean company's email deletion protocols. Because Samsung's internal email system, called mySingle, routinely erases emails after two weeks, it was proposed that the company didn't follow its legal burden to preserve evidence relating to the trial.

At the time of Apple's motion, Judge Grewal said Samsung "consciously disregarded" its legal obligations, and ordered the jury be apprised of the situation.

The Korean electronics giant subsequently issued its own motion for adverse inference instruction against Apple, though the basis for such a request was unclear given the Cupertino company doesn't have a system in place which routinely destroys emails.



Apple v. Samsung is scheduled to continue on Friday with more testimony from Apple expert witnesses.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 49
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    [VIDEO]
  • Reply 2 of 49
    vadaniavadania Posts: 425member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    [VIDEO]

    Not sure what you were implying there...

    It would just be awesome if when they brief the jury they said "oh, and by the way Samsung wanted to say Apple destroyed evidence in the form of corporate e-mails. There's no grounds for the claim and they just filed it yesterday."

    I would love that! But they can't do it.

    Edit: also loved your post earlier. Very passionate!
  • Reply 3 of 49


    Samsung's birds are coming home to roost... and they look more and more like vultures.

  • Reply 4 of 49
    845032845032 Posts: 76member


    Samsung is really hard to fight.


     


    because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.?

  • Reply 5 of 49
    vadaniavadania Posts: 425member
    845032 wrote: »
    Samsung is really hard to fight.

    because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.?

    A rather bold statement.

    I really do wish you could enlighten the rest of the class with your knowledge. Any references to which you stake your claim?

    Silence on your part will imply that your theory is based on wild conjecture rather than factual evidence.
  • Reply 6 of 49
    enzosenzos Posts: 344member


    Funny when you think about it: Samesong trying to refute charges of copying by slavish copying of Apple's courtroom tactics. 

  • Reply 7 of 49
    entropysentropys Posts: 1,105member
    Not a very slavish copy though, they forgot the evidence bit.
  • Reply 8 of 49
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Vadania View Post



    A rather bold statement.

    I really do wish you could enlighten the rest of the class with your knowledge. Any references to which you stake your claim?

    Silence on your part will imply that your theory is based on wild conjecture rather than factual evidence.

     

    Hey, don't do that! The number is going to post that list of links and some Samsung propaganda again, which it has already done on a couple of other threads.
  • Reply 9 of 49
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX 





     


    I prefer this:-


     


    image


     


    No second prize.


     


     



    Oh Yeah

    I heard about a person who had a broken heart

    With nothing to drive him on, no hope no spark no flame

    He could'nt see at all tears they were blinding him

    He kept it all inside, the guilt and all the pain

    You know I say I tried to warn him

    They had him backed up against the wall

    I hope I'm not too late

    No one can tell you exactly what you have gotta be

    You've got to stand your ground and fight to save your life

    It may be hard but ooh ooh it's the only way

    Always remembering there ain't no second prize

    There ain't no second prize

    You know I say I tried to warn him

    They had him backed up against the wall

    Why can't I stand up and try to tell him

    They've got me backed up against the wall

    I hope I'm not too late

    No one can tell you exactly what you have gotta be

    You've got to stand your ground and fight to save your life

    It may be hard but ooh ooh it's the only way

    Always remembering there ain't no second prize

    There ain't no second prize

    Oh no there ain't no second prize

    There ain't no second prize

    Oh no there ain't no second prize

    There's not gonna be no second prize

    Oh no there ain't no second prize

    Oh there's no second prize

    Oh no there ain't no second prize

    Never never never never gonna be

    Oh no there ain't no second prize

    [ Lyrics from:


    It seems Samsung's lawyers were too late, too often.


     


    Finest Aussie rock.

  • Reply 10 of 49
    hittrj01hittrj01 Posts: 753member


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 845032 View Post


    Samsung is really hard to fight.


     


    because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.?



     


    It sucks when all of that stupid evidence actually points in Apple's favor, huh?


     


    Just because Samsung tries to get "evidence" admitted doesn't mean that it's actually true. All I know is that I delete work emails all the time because I think they have no relevance to anything, and I can see Apple as a company deleting emails on a regular basis to keep the secrecy intact. None of that equates to corporate espionage, which Samsung did. They deliberately deleted files and documents that they were specifically told not to, and then claimed that they didn't. Pathetic.

  • Reply 11 of 49
    quadra 610quadra 610 Posts: 6,737member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 845032 View Post


    Samsung is really hard to fight.


     


    because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.?



     


     


    How does that make them "hard to fight"? If anything, it (Samsung's legal blunders) makes them *easier* to fight. 

  • Reply 12 of 49
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,950member
    845032 wrote: »
    Samsung is really hard to fight.

    because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.?

    He should've said "some" like the F700, the Japanese guy, and now this. I'd rather see a case judged on all the evidence available not with one party handcuffed, but Samsung is mostly to blame here so it's hard to sympathize. The legal team should've had all their ducks in a row and were given ample chance to do so.
  • Reply 13 of 49
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 6,084member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 845032 View Post


    Samsung is really hard to fight.


     


    because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.?



     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Vadania View Post





    A rather bold statement.

    I really do wish you could enlighten the rest of the class with your knowledge. Any references to which you stake your claim?

    Silence on your part will imply that your theory is based on wild conjecture rather than factual evidence.


     


    It's called a drive-by troll. The iHaters came up with this talking point alleging the judge is on the take from Apple. They're splattering that talking point all over the tech forums. Wait until the verdict comes in favor of Apple. The reaction is going to be spectacular.

  • Reply 14 of 49
    lilgto64lilgto64 Posts: 1,147member


    email deletion after 2 weeks? i suppose they don't have HIPPA, PCI, or Sarbanes-Oxley over there - but still, how do you conduct business when you don't have an email from three weeks ago? 

  • Reply 15 of 49


    You could have mentioned that you were joking.


    How could you write that statement. :)

  • Reply 16 of 49

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 845032 View Post


    Samsung is really hard to fight.


     


    because from day one, the judge decided to bar any evidence that might work against Apple.?



    Oh really?  You could have mentioned that you were joking. 

  • Reply 17 of 49
    bilbo63bilbo63 Posts: 285member


    Besides filing late, there was actual evidence that Samsung had in fact destroyed evidence that may support Apple's case. Not so with Apple, there was no evidence whatsoever that they had destroyed anything.


     


    I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm ready for this to be over. Samsung clearly copied the Apple. They know it. The court knows it. At the end of the day, it's not likely that anything will be done about it. A slap on the wrist if anything, then it will be business as usual.

  • Reply 18 of 49
    desuserigndesuserign Posts: 1,316member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Chandra69 View Post


    Oh really?  You could have mentioned that you were joking. 



    Or perhaps, more appropriately, "I'm just trollin,' "


    Perhaps there should be a trolling emoticon? (or perhaps there already is one?)


     


    (8^@)=

  • Reply 19 of 49
    desuserign wrote: »

    (8^@)=

    Nice.
  • Reply 20 of 49

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post


     


     


    It's called a drive-by troll. The iHaters came up with this talking point alleging the judge is on the take from Apple. They're splattering that talking point all over the tech forums. Wait until the verdict comes in favor of Apple. The reaction is going to be spectacular.



     


    It is so obvious too.   It is like the same person repeating the same "opinion" over and over regardless the topic or argument.

Sign In or Register to comment.