I hope someone can find a good quote on teh internets because I checked
several screensful of Google searches without finding anything helpful.
It
does look a bit like Samsung has overstepped somewhat with a mixture of
wikipeding and chinese whispering.
Wikipeding: the citations loop
round to Quinn Emmanuel and end there. No external
links:
[Samsung's posting featured in this Groklaw article]
Apple
argues (Opp. 1-2) that Samsung waived its juror bias argument by failing to make
it sooner, but Samsung could not reasonably have ascertained Mr. Hogan’s
dishonesty before the jury’s verdicts. As Samsung has made clear and Apple
cannot dispute, Mr. Hogan made public statements after the verdicts that so
clearly favored Apple that the press speculated about their possible
financial ties. Dkt. 2022, ¶4.
(my emphasis)
So what does
Docket 2022, para 4 tell us?
Not a lot. It was filed in
error...
[2022] 10/04/2012AFFIDAVIT of Michael T.
Zeller in Support of Samsung's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New
Trial, and/or Remittitur Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50 and 59
by Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung
Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: *** # (1) Exhibit FILED IN ERROR.
DOCUMENT LOCKED. DOCUMENT TO BE REFILED LATER. *** )(Estrich, Susan) (Filed on
10/4/2012) Modified on 10/5/2012 (ewn, COURT
STAFF).
... and presumably replaced by 2025 which has a
similar title.
[2025] 10/05/2012 CORRECTED EXHIBITS
A - I to [2022] the Zeller Affidavit in Support of Samsung's Rules 50 and 59
Motion filed by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation),
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Related
document(s)[2022]) (Estrich, Susan) (Filed on 10/5/2012) Modified text on
10/9/2012 (dhmS, COURT STAFF). Modified text on 10/9/2012 (dhmS, COURT
STAFF).
Para 4 says...
4.
More specifically, after the verdict and after the publication of press
accounts
raising questions about Mr. Hogan's impartiality, Samsung
requested and subsequently received
on September 10, 2012 a copy of the
bankruptcy court file from In re Velvin R. Hogan and Carol
K. Hogan, Case No.
93-58291-MM (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 1993), a copy of which is Dkt. No.
1990
(“Estrich Decl.”) Ex. B. That bankruptcy court file included papers showing that
Seagate
Technology, Inc. had filed litigation against Mr. Hogan in Seagate
Tech., Inc. v. Hogan, MS 93-0919 (Santa Cruz Sup. Ct.) (attached as Exhibit A to
the Estrich Decl., Dkt. 1990). This was the
first time Samsung learned of any
litigation between Mr. Hogan and Seagate. These same papers
in the bankruptcy
court file showed that Seagate’s attorney in the lawsuit was Michael Grady, a
fact which Samsung also had not known prior to the verdict and prior to
obtaining the bankruptcy
court file.
(My emphasis)
So by a
process I choose to attribute to Chinese Whispers, "raising questions about Mr.
Hogan's impartiality" mutated into "speculated about their possible financial
ties". I could also believe that Docket 2022 DID use those words and was toned
down to use the wording in Docket 2025, but when today's filing was done the
author went to the wrong document.
I thought hard before submitting this post
as I feel Samsung deserves every break they can get, but then realized that if I
can spot this then Apple's legal team will do so in a microsecond, and PJ's
interest on this site has always been the truth whether for or against
Apple.
If anyone can find an article to back up Samsung's statement I think
it would be a good time to save it and send a link...
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|