Samsung Electronics America, Inc. v. Yang Kun "Michael" Chung
321 F.R.D. 250
N.D. Tex.2017Background
- Samsung sued All Pro and individual defendants alleging counterfeiting, trademark infringement, and auction-rigging; discovery disputes followed about production of witness interview recordings/statements and broad written discovery requests.
- Magistrate Judge Horan issued a March 7, 2017 discovery order requiring Samsung to produce witness statements and recorded interviews to defendants (production deadlines March 17–21, 2017).
- Samsung produced ~190 hours of interview recordings and statements but designated them Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only (AEO) under the parties’ Agreed Protective Order; All Pro and defendant Song objected that AEO prevented relevant personnel from reviewing materials and sought sanctions/compelled access.
- Samsung moved to compel All Pro to withdraw boilerplate objections and provide full interrogatory answers and document productions; All Pro defended many objections as burdensome and sought leave to file a supplemental affidavit (Shabtay) after briefing.
- The Court held a hearing, denied All Pro’s sanctions motion, denied All Pro’s motion for leave to file the affidavit, granted Samsung’s motions to compel in part and denied them in part, and ordered specific supplementation/productions with deadlines; the Court also declined to award fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Samsung) | Defendant's Argument (All Pro / Song) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether sanctions under Rule 37 were warranted because Samsung produced materials but labeled them AEO, allegedly frustrating the March 7 order | AEO designation is improper where Court ordered production; AEO prevents defendants/personnel from meaningful use; seek fees and order removing AEO | Samsung complied with March 7 order by producing materials to counsel; AEO designations fall within Agreed Protective Order; confidentiality dispute must follow that Order's procedures | Denied All Pro’s sanctions motion; AEO designations alone did not show contempt or justify Rule 37 sanctions; confidentiality challenges must be raised per the Agreed Protective Order and as to specific items if necessary |
| Whether All Pro must amend and verify interrogatory answers and withdraw improper/boilerplate objections | All Pro’s interrogatory answers are evasive, unverified, and contain boilerplate objections; compel full, sworn answers and verifications | All Pro is a small company with limited resources, has supplemented answers, attempted to confer, and some objections are justified as burdensome or overbroad | Granted in part: Court ordered supplementation and verification by set dates for particular interrogatories (e.g., Nos. 3,6,14–17,19–20); denied as to some overbroad requests (Interrog. 10–12) as disproportionate |
| Whether All Pro must produce documents responsive to numerous RFPs (scope/time, third-party communications, auctions, builds, revenue, purchasers) | Requests are relevant and proportional to claims (counterfeiting, auction-rigging); Samsung narrowed some timeframes and agreed other limits; compel broad categories including auction-related docs and financial records | Many requests are overbroad, burdensome, implicate proprietary customer data, or seek information beyond pleaded claims; All Pro amended some responses and withdrew some objections | Granted in part and denied in part: Court ordered production limited by proportionality (e.g., produce communications re: OCTAs/PBAs and auctions tied to ~16,318 model numbers Samsung will provide; limited timeframes (generally 2012–2015) for many categories); allowed revenue and sales records production; denied requests found non-proportional or where no documents exist |
| Whether All Pro should be allowed to file late supplemental affidavit (Shabtay) in opposition to Samsung’s motions to compel | All Pro: affidavit supplies factual proof of burden and recordkeeping; little prejudice because much of the content paralleled existing submissions | Samsung: late-filed affidavit is untimely, prejudices Samsung’s replies, and All Pro has no justification for delay; amounts to a sur‑reply | Denied: Court treated the affidavit as untimely sur‑reply, prejudicial, and unnecessary because All Pro had earlier opportunities to present the facts; motion for leave denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith & Fuller, P.A. v. Cooper Tire & Rubber Co., 685 F.3d 486 (5th Cir. 2012) (district court has broad discretion to fashion Rule 37 sanctions; severe sanctions generally require bad faith)
- Chilcutt v. United States, 4 F.3d 1313 (5th Cir. 1993) (dismissal for discovery noncompliance reserved for willful or bad-faith failures; lesser sanctions allowed without willfulness)
- Nissho-Iwai Am. Corp. v. Kline, 845 F.2d 1300 (5th Cir. 1988) (dismissal is draconian and requires willfulness or bad faith)
- Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1987) (refusal to comply that results from honest confusion or inability to comply disfavors dismissal)
- Tech. Chemical Co. v. IG-LO Prod. Corp., 812 F.2d 222 (5th Cir. 1987) (default judgment appropriate when noncompliance stems from willfulness or bad faith)
- Batson v. Neal Spelce Associates, Inc., 765 F.2d 511 (5th Cir. 1985) (dismissal authorized only for willful or bad-faith failure to comply)
- Merritt v. Int’l Bhd. of Boilermakers, 649 F.2d 1013 (5th Cir. 1981) (magistrate may enter nondispositive orders including attorney-fee sanctions under Rule 37)
- Dorsey v. Acad. Moving & Storage, Inc., 423 F.2d 858 (5th Cir. 1970) (Rule 37 sanctions aim to compel production and may include reasonable expenses)
- Pierce v. Underwood, 487 U.S. 552 (U.S. 1988) (defining "substantially justified" standard referenced in discovery-sanctions context)