Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118426
N.D. Cal.2012Background
- Samsung Moves for relief from two adverse-inference orders and a dismissal order, seeking de novo review or relief from non-dispositive rulings, after the July 24, 2012 Adverse Inference Order and August 16, 2012 Denial Order by Magistrate Judge Grewal.
- The Adverse Inference Order found Samsung violated a preservation duty beginning August 2010 and issued a targeted adverse-inference instruction against Samsung’s spoliation, focusing on SEC’s emails and a disparity with Outlook custodians.
- Apple sued Samsung for patent infringement on April 15, 2011; Apple and Samsung exchanged litigation-hold notices and preservation efforts, while Samsung’s system mySingle automatically deletes emails after two weeks.
- Judge Grewal concluded that Samsung’s preservation efforts were deficient, but the court granted relief in part, reducing the rigor of the adverse inference and limiting it to SEC, not all Samsung entities.
- The court also granted Samsung relief from the August 16, 2012 Denial Order, and ultimately declined to give identical adverse-inference jury instructions against both parties but allowed mirror instruction against Apple for its spoliation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for Judge Grewal’s ruling | Samsung argues de novo review due to inherent power to sanction | Court should apply de novo if dispositive; otherwise clear-error | Non-dispositive; reviewed for clear error; not dispositive sanctions. |
| Whether Samsung’s duty to preserve arose in August 2010 | Duty began Aug 2010 after Aug 4 presentation | Duty did not arise until April 2011; earlier preservation was not triggered | No error; August 2010 finding sustained; duty triggered Aug 2010. |
| Whether the spoliation finding and sanction were justified | Spoliation occurred; strong adverse inference warranted | Spoliation occurred but strong adverse inference too harsh | Spoliation found; but court reduces to milder mirror-inference for Apple; not determinative across all issues. |
| Form of the sanction and scope (adverse inference instruction) | Adverse inference should be broad and determinative | Less severe sanction appropriate given record | Original harsh instruction modified to milder form; two-way mirror instruction against Apple granted, but court ultimately did not give identical adverse-inference instructions. |
| Timeliness of Samsung’s Denial Order review | Denial order review should be timely under FRCP 51 | Timeliness under Civil Local Rules; not untimely | Samsung’s motion timely; Judge Grewal’s Denial Order reviewed for lawfulness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (Supreme Court (1991)) (inherent powers include sanctions; can sanction for spoliation)
- In re Rainbow Magazine, 77 F.3d 278 (9th Cir. 1996) (inherent powers extend to sanctions by courts created by Congress)
- Glover v. BIC Corp., 6 F.3d 1318 (9th Cir. 1993) (inherent power to impose spoliation sanctions recognized)
- Micron Tech., Inc. v. Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (technology-context preservation duties; foreseeability of litigation)
- Residential Funding Corp. v. DeGeorge Fin. Corp., 306 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2002) (three-part test for adverse-inference sanctions; duty, culpable state of mind, relevance)
- Akiona v. United States, 938 F.2d 158 (9th Cir. 1991) (spoliation sanctions permitted under inherent authority)